Intellectual Technology

Intech Concepts 25
(Indicators of Reasoning Process)



The absolutes of controlling concepts, and their utility to you... 12 November 2005

If after reading this particular section, you retain your current process of creating contradictions, you are wasting your time at this website.

If you resolve the contradiction being discussed, you will thoroughly enjoy laughing at all of what humans do and say. The local, national and international news will provide excessive amusement. You will immediately recognize the countless examples of how humans fool themselves into believing illusions that cannot exist, displayed on the popular science programs shown on television, etceteras.

A controlling concept is a concept which flawlessly and invariably dictates the results of all the lesser, partial or related sub-concepts it controls.

Understanding controlling concepts is imperative if a person wishes to resolve complex contradictions, and even most simple contradictions.

After the controlling concept is identified, proven and verified against every question you can devise or discover, subject to change from the results of further questions, there is no human ability to defy a controlling concept, or sustain a contradiction to that concept, with any arrangements of words or actions.

Any change cannot occur from additional statements, but only from additional questions that identify a new contradiction, and then, only possibly.

Within the arena of controlling concepts and controlling contradictions, answers to additional questions that suggest a contradiction are derived with exponential efficiency. Vast arrays of lesser concepts and contradictions have already been identified and resolved by the words available for any new questions.

The controlling concept discussed in this section, controls all concepts conveyed by language or its results, among humans. It is the most universally ignored concept, and thus the primary origin of all human-caused contradictions (problems). It is repeatedly referenced in other sections of this website, and requires repeated emphasis because, despite its amusing simplicity, society intensely trains the minds of its young to incessantly defy the concept, resulting in the human-caused problems you recognize. The intensity is such that the training is difficult to correct. The human mind is a trained device.

Ignorance of, or not using, the controlling concept described herein, impairs and often precludes any useful advancement of your mind's knowledge, or the sustainable utility of the knowledge you hold.

The controlling concept, and any portions thereof, are described with words. The perceptions of related contradictions are also described with words, and then resolved with words.

The controlling concept herein described is the imperative for the words that you use, to hold their commonly understood, dictionary meanings, or to hold meanings that you flawlessly define and openly convey to every human mind encountering your words. Obviously, the common dictionary meanings are more efficient than attempting to attach new definitions to words. There are plenty of words available. Therefore, if you are using a word that does not match its definition for the concept you are attempting to convey, simply select another word whose definition matches the concept you wish to use or convey.

Of course when your intent is to deceive the other guy, by applying invented and then hidden or obscured meanings to words, as do the American judicial branch personnel and lawyers, that contradiction will ultimately defeat your every resulting action, and will illuminate you as a fool. The results of using words that do not hold their meanings are doomed to failure, and identify you as too ignorant to understand that inherent result of a controlling contradiction, as well as illiterate.

When using a word, it is the concept or definition (arrangement of additional words ) that is being conveyed, not the word.

If a person has trained her or his mind to use words that do not hold their meanings, that mind is of no utility to itself, you or society, for the purpose of sustainably resolving contradictions (solving problems). Such persons, common to institutional leadership positions, are merely, temporarily perpetuating the intellectual stagnation of themselves and their society, usually at damage to people. Such illiterate persons are often highly titled, replete with arrays of impressive credentials, and highly paid, but useless for solving any problems.

You can easily identify the people who are useless for identifying and manifesting the solutions to the problems they purport to be solving or attempting to solve. Simply ascertain if there are any contradictions in their use of words. If there are such unresolved contradictions, which upon questioning are not immediately resolved, or otherwise not resolved with the test of time, that person manifests no utility in the language she or he uses for their decisions and actions.

As with this section, the examples of such an identification process are found in other sections of this website.

If any Democrat or Republican party politician has ever verifiably lied (as have all of them), and the Party leadership has failed to remove them from Party recognition of their membership or acknowledged association (as has not happened therein), to otherwise defend the Party from being defined as representing, and represented by, dishonest people, then it is humanly not possible for a person to be honest and vote for any Republican or Democrat. The meanings of the words preclude them from being logically used to join opposing concepts as one concept.

Because lying, representing liars or being represented by liars creates a contradiction, and no contradiction can be left in place to sustainably resolve a contradiction, if you or an organization leader you support purports to be honest, and votes for any Democrat or Republican, you are an idiot, fooling yourself, with no hope of learning how to sustainably resolve complex contradictions, or even most simple contradictions.

If a mind is not able to resolve easily identified, fundamental contradictions, such as those mentioned herein, only a fool would suggest it can resolve more complex contradictions involving greater arrays of contradictions.

Obviously the RepublicratDemocans cannot possibly solve social problems, for that reason, also illuminated in countless actions including their repeatedly starting wars against nations that did not attack the US, without the lawfully required "Declaration of War", for their expressed reason of creating peace, security and other concepts mutually exclusive to starting wars.

It is fools, including all the highly titled, credentialed and educated fools, who support in any willing way, any DemocanRepublicrat or other such ignorant, institutionally self-deluded chaps who can be easily recognized as incessantly using words that do not hold their meanings, and who thus serve only to further fool the fools so using those words or believing them.

It costs you nothing to stop voting for DemocanRepublicrats, while the value of training your mind with that decision is priceless. Or, if you wish, you can resolve that contradiction by openly stating that you are not honest, and therefore you can logically vote for incessantly lying RepublicratDemocans, but you therein create the contradictions of your dishonesty and advancing the DemocanRepublicrat contradictions, which preclude your successfully resolving other contradictions.

The value of the decision to stop voting for RepublicratDemocans is in your training your mind to use words that hold their meaning, but you must extend that training to an array of other such contradiction resolutions, to learn how to resolve complex contradictions.

Concurrently, you cannot possibly be supporting the US Constitution, with its expressed right of the people to keep and bear arms, that shall not be infringed, while supporting the National Rifle Association (NRA) which avidly supports concealed carry permit laws and other infringements on gun owner and non-gun owner rights. The permit systems are imposed, under threat of jail, to replace the right to carry arms. The request for a permit (permission) constitutes the lawfully and logically defined, willful surrender of one's rights in exchange for the privilege of being granted government permission to exercise an action that did not, and lawfully cannot, require permission (mutually exclusive concepts). Permission that is grantable is deniable. A right cannot be lawfully denied, by definition, and can only be willfully surrendered.

NRA leaders, lawyers, court judges and other such power-damaged minds merely use common deception among ignorant, unquestioning people to cause them to unknowingly, willfully surrender their rights by using words that do not hold their meanings, such as saying they support rights while replacing them with privileges. The contradiction is, of course, not sustainable, and in the future, even children will laugh at the American gun owners who fooled themselves out of their rights by believing rather than questioning their NRA leaders and the DemocanRepublicrats. Therein, of course, the NRA leadership dolts, lawyers, judges and their ilk, identify themselves as the greater, unquestioning fools because their rhetorical ruses are inherently doomed and only identify said leaders as fools. No human holds the ability to sustain a contradiction, but fools define themselves with their belief that they can forever fool other human minds predicated on the process to identify and resolve contradictions.

Obviously NRA leaders are the problem for gun owners, not the solution, with no hope of regaining the free exercise of any citizen rights, by training their minds, and those of their unquestioning followers, to contradict themselves for the process of resolving a contradiction, much to the howling laughter of the observers.

You need only identify the meanings of the words. If the meanings of the words identify a contradiction in your actions, and you sustain the actions or do not change your words, your mind is useless to you and others for learning the knowledge of how to resolve complex contradictions.

Using words that hold their meanings is a controlling concept for sustainably resolving contradictions (solving problems). Human minds are trained devices. You must train your mind to use words that hold their meanings if you wish to sustainably resolve contradictions. If you fail to learn that easily learned knowledge, usually because of intellectual laziness, at least laugh yourself to tears over all your frustrations which are otherwise easily solved.

Of course the right (not privilege) to a trial by jury, the process described by the writers of the US Constitution as the most brilliant device yet created by humans, for the purpose of precluding government tyranny, while jury trials are now summarily denied more than granted by American court judges who took an oath to uphold the constitution, illuminates American court judges, the DemocanRepublicrats who select them, and the Americans who still express respect for any of their entire government gang, as too ignorant to understanding the words they use for their decisions and actions, even if you hand them a dictionary. That is merely another of countless examples of the intellectually primitive humans who invented language, defined their words, then used the words to contradict themselves, ask no effective questions of their glaring contradictions or the damaging results, and are frustrated by the existence of the damaging contradictions they cannot understand because the words they use to express their frustrations do not hold their meanings and thus create more contradictions.

It is not humanly possible to learn how to resolve complex contradictions until you learn how to consistently use words that hold their meanings.

Any institution leader who repeatedly uses words that do not hold their meanings, will not be able to solve social problems, or even personal problems, and is supported by unquestioning fools alone.

The heart pumps blood. The brain identifies emotional reactions to stimuli, a designed electro-chemical reaction. There are no matters of the heart, except those of pumping blood. If you wish to fabricate emotional mysteries, reference them by the words that hold their meanings, such as emotional mysteries, if you are too lazy or uninterested to easily solve emotional mysteries. The contradicted use of words, in defiance of the dictionary, is not just currently perpetuated in America, but is increasing, illuminating the often referenced dumbing down of America. The concept and practice is most actively perpetuated by American government school English teachers, science teachers, their ilk and the unquestioning Americans they fooled, as proven by the damaging contradictions they create, saturating the American society.

If any American public school English or science teacher or professor is sufficiently intelligent to state in a public (government) school classroom, the reasoning illuminating the impossibility of voting for RepublicratDemocans, who have undisputably proven their institutionally established dishonesty, while the voter claims to be honest, if English language words hold their meanings, kindly send me the proof of that statement, perhaps written or recorded and verified by the students, so that the example of a proverbial breakthrough in the dumbing down of America can by widely published for its benefit to others. The fear that the teacher would be promptly fired is immaterial to said intelligence. For how much money will you train your mind to become increasingly ignorant by attempting to sustain contradictions, and train young people to become that ignorant, when your action can only damage you and them, and then illuminate you as the idiot who valued your human mind, and the minds of young people, as so worthless? There are too many available jobs, to acquiesce to keeping yourself ignorant while people who ask questions of your laughable contradictions are advancing their knowledge. And with that knowledge said teacher can learn how to ask the type questions that preclude her or him from being fired for teaching flawless truth verifiably imperative to stop the dumbing down of America.

Distinguish yourself. Train your mind to use words that hold their meanings. Thereupon the resolutions to even the most complex contradictions become laughably self evident. Thereafter, with that knowledge, the process to manifest those contradiction resolutions, at exponential advancement of human knowledge and its individual and therefore social benefits, concurrently defeating any human opposition, likewise becomes evident. But you may be laughing so hard, you retain no incentive to manifest the knowledge among people who are so primitive in their thinking process that they would be angered by your manifesting, for their benefit, what they expressly want most.

Simply start, or methodically advance, your recognition of expressed words, yours and others, which do not conform to their meanings for their context or use, and which thus create contradictions, and therefore ask the questions that resolve the contradictions, to thus create the arrangements of words that accurately describe the concepts at discussion. And have fun doing that.

If you can identify any contradiction in my words, and we can verify the contradiction, the resolution will be easy, conforming to logic, and I will thank you for your having advanced my knowledge.




George Bush could still win his Iraq war... 15 November 2005

Time having passed, more Americans are belatedly recognizing that the Iraq war was doomed from the get-go, as being fought with the knowledge currently held by George Bush.

Wars, the second most popular hobby of humans, have conveyed no useful knowledge to those who start wars, by design.

Who of you reading these words would start a war without first simply asking and answering every related question, writing each, that any mind could devise, between the scheduled start of a war and its therefore successful conclusion effecting precisely the goal stated by the person starting the war?

Your answer?

Is there not obviously enough data of the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals, therefore including wars, resultant from the test of time, to precisely learn from the answers to effective questions, every result of every action in a war?

George Bush, a rich, drunkard kid who skipped out of Vietnam war duty while supporting the political regime that was sending the less rich kids to war, literally cannot comprehend the difference between the easy, comfortable task of patiently asking and answering questions to design a verifiably quick and successful war, and the difficult, grievous task of fighting a war for leaders who are too ignorant and malicious to perform the aforementioned task of genuine leaders. Having not proverbially touched the top of a hot stove, and because he is lavishly served by minions who keep him away from stoves, and having obviously never learned how to use words that hold their meanings, George's mind does not understand the pain of touching a hot stove. To this day his mind is clueless of the cost and consequences of wars, as is the case with all the idiots who start wars.

George Bush could still win his Iraq war, as of today, but that opportunity is passing. The process is merely knowledge, which would be new to George and most other folks, but not new to certain people who merely synthesized all the uncontradicted answers to controlling questions about wars and data related to Iraq and the US, etceteras. Acquiring the knowledge would result in George making a series of decisions and actions that concluded with the US winning the Iraq war, to George's complete satisfaction, and effecting the greatest international respect for George.

George does not currently know how to win his war in Iraq, quite obviously. George would have to learn new knowledge, an obviously simple process identical to that of how any human learns new knowledge.

To suggest that the knowledge does not exist would be to display obvious ignorance, in that human minds created George's current contradictions, and therefore human minds inherently hold the knowledge of those contradiction resolutions. The contradictions could not otherwise exist. All the data is within the mind, and need only be made useful by formulating the questions that create the neural routings to synthesize the data. Only humans create contradictions, and they do so simply by making decisions from incomplete data or knowledge otherwise available by their own mind's process, or there would be no contradictions.

George does not seek new knowledge, by design of institutional process whose self-inflicted victims would object to this sentence but verifiably fail a test of their objections upon questioning, and because George, like his institutional colleagues, has successfully effected an institutionally induced defense against any source of knowledge related to effective contradiction identification and resolution process inherent to the design of his mind. Therefore US President George Bush will be known within and beyond US history as the president who botched a war, start to finish, more thoroughly than any other war monger in the history of the US and many other countries, much to the laughter of historians and commonly intelligent people.

And the dichotomy is superlative. The Iraqi freedom fighters are so militarily incompetent that they must rely on suicide bombers who therefore kill their own minds which would have otherwise learned from their errors to more effectively attack their US enemy the next time. And the Iraqis are killing more of each other than they are killing the US invaders/occupiers. With an enemy like that, facing the most technologically advanced military in human history, only the most incompetent military leader in human history could lose a war, as will George Bush, Commander in Chief of the US military. Let me wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes, and continue to torment the keyboard.

Unlike the US-Vietnam war, which was shared by more than one president to thus dilute their guilt, and was predicated on the illusion of a previous enemy (communism) denounced by several more presidents, George's Iraq war was his fabrication alone. George attacked an enemy he alone invented with an array of laughable lies inherent to inventions based on a craving for power and the use of force above the process of reasoning. His errors, lies and blunders were so obvious, because of George's more noticeably ignorant and hate-filled mind, that they quickly became common public knowledge even within the currently most gullible society on the planet. Because George will soon miserably lose his war, at slaughter of many Americans and Iraqis, at bankrupting cost which may be the proverbial straw on the back of the American taxpayers or the illusionary value in American paper dollars, at more international hatred of the American war mongers and torturers than all the previous American arrogance could create, at the internationally popularized, new type of enemy attack process against arrogant Americans, and at the creation of the reactionary US Police State destroying the last vestiges of US Constitutionally described rights of Americans, etceteras, George will earn the entire blame for his idiot's war.

George Bush will be described as the worst US president, with few people concerned about distinguishing him from his CIA-mentality father of a similar status.

But of course it is only knowledge that separates him from what he has earned with his ignorance, and what he could earn with new knowledge.

As from the outset of his war, or he would not have started it, it is not possible for George to do anything but miserably lose his Iraq war with the knowledge he currently holds, and with the counsel he currently uses or for which he can understand reason for access.

The US Congressmen, who are the only people in the US able to lawfully start a war, who slithered away from their related duty to declare war if war was to be started, in a more cowardly fashion than cowardly George skipped out on Vietnam war duty, and all of their institutional colleagues, are as clueless of how to win the Iraq war as is George, or they would have already effected or at least announced their plan.

It is useful to note that even a Congressman who is a Vietnam veteran, retired Marine Corps officer, despite his institutional impairments, vaguely understands the heat of the aforementioned stove, from his experiences that George dodged, and has thus belatedly recognized the internationally understood, doomed nature of George's war, and has called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops before more are killed and maimed, before they slaughter, maim and torture more Iraqi civilians, destroy more homes and businesses in Iraq, drive more Iraqi children out of schools and into the child labor industry, destroy the last vestiges of American credibility for anything but criminal war mongering, and create more intense international hatred for Americans. But that congressman, Representative John Murtha, a DemocanRepublicrat from Pennsylvania, does not know how to do anything but miserably lose the war, on schedule, and could not recognize the source of knowledge that could be used to not lose the war, even if he read these words and you handed him a dictionary. He and George share the same institution and its unresolved institutional contradictions which preclude their minds from currently understanding access to contradiction resolution process, the process to solve the problem they created. They are clueless of the process to ask effective questions. John originally supported George's war.

John Murtha and George Bush, like their RepublicratDemocan colleagues, would dearly like to know how to win the Iraq war, a laughably easy process, or at least how to quickly slither out of the war and create a political diversion to again fool the gullible Americans, the latter being unnecessary but at least understandable to DemocanRepublicrats. If they learned the knowledge of how to promptly win the war, they would literally laugh at the brilliant disguise of the knowledge that had always been so readily available to them, that is, its simplicity. But John and George do not have any institutional access to a source of such knowledge, and could not understand it even if they read these words. Power-damaged minds could not exist if their defenses against the knowledge of contradiction resolution process were not complete, or so nearly complete that only a certain unique concept could breach those defenses. The single item of access to such knowledge was brilliantly designed to preclude its recognition by power-damaged minds, until a particular time/event that will effect a quantum advancement of the human phenomenon, known to those who have simply learned the design the same way all knowledge is learned.

For this time in history, if the US, Russian, Chinese, Indian or British primary executive leader (president or such title) learned contradiction identification and resolution process, and retained the incentive to effect it for their respective nation, a quantum advancement of the human phenomenon would promptly result, first vastly benefiting the people of that nation, and said executive leader. But of course such leaders are the last people on the planet who would access such knowledge, by design of the knowledge puzzle you would learn upon learning intellectual technology. Any human can learn and effect the knowledge. When it is manifested at an institutional level, if done so by an institution of lesser power than the then currently most powerful institution, such as by Russia during these times of soon-to-collapse US dominance, the humor of the greater institutions therefore having no escape from following the previously lesser institution, with fewer initial benefits for the people of the previous greater institution, will offer magnificent material for historians, albeit ancient as a concept. Russia's Putin could promptly replace the US as the world's dominant leader, effecting wisdom that defeated all military power. The process is just knowledge, comfortably learned.

George Bush's institutional defense mechanisms against the knowledge of how to win his Iraq war are greater than the defense mechanisms of the entire US Police State / military forces and their nuclear weapons, because the latter are only material manifestations of the vastly greater defenses within the power-damaged minds of George Bush and his colleagues, including his police, military and court chaps. Institutions can only exist upon the defenses that preclude advanced knowledge from reaching institution decision makers, or the institutions would have already manifested the benefits of advanced knowledge. Why do the American Indians who so eagerly sought horses when the Spanish brought horses to America, use automobiles today? The common human mind will use a recognizable benefit, but the institutionally altered mind will effect all manner of defenses against the benefits which are foolishly perceived to threaten the institution. If the power structure of the US had been selected from only horse riding institutions, automobiles would be more scarce in the US, than uncensored internet service in China.

Does not uncensored knowledge advance and benefit a society, by design of the human mind and the definition of knowledge? Notice who fears, loathes, flees, defends against, and attacks knowledge, therefore including the knowledge of how to efficiently resolve contradictions to thus promptly win any war.

It does not matter who you are. If you are reading these words at this obscure website, like countless expressions of reasoning throughout human history, if you set out to convey to George Bush the information that a particular person holds, can verify and convey to George, the knowledge of how George can win his Iraq war, and also become the most respected national leader in US and world history, you would fail. No email, phone call or letter from a knowledgeable person can reach George, or such information would have already reached him before he created his contradictions. Any attempt to convey useful knowledge, or even the knowledge of a source of knowledge, through George's advisors and colleagues (institutional defense network) would be rejected before it could reach George. His advisors hold the same institutionally induced defense against new knowledge, or they would not have been selected as his advisors. Any innovative techniques, one of which I once amusingly designed and orchestrated to gain prominent attention by President Ronald Reagan and his press corps, would constitute a proverbial sound-byte effect of no utility in regard to useful knowledge for resolving contradictions. Sound bytes, or isolated parts of knowledge, cannot effect understanding of a contradiction resolution process, and only effect the advancement of contradictions, as so clearly illuminated by the results of American news journalists.

Contradiction resolutions can only be learned from the questions that a human mind devises, in this case those of George's mind, since it is his contradiction-saturated war, or by another entity manifesting the resolutions in a manner that a separate creator of contradictions cannot escape.

Therefore a majority or even significant minority of the US Congress or Supreme Court, who are attempting to sustain George's contradictions, could win George's Iraq war, at great benefit to Americans, but not to George's benefit. George would derive benefit only if he effected his goal. A common citizen could do the same, because the knowledge is the same, but the incentive figuratively evaporates as the size or power of the institution effecting the process diminishes. The balance is perfect in all things, and incentive is controlling for human actions. The reason that wars are still so popular while certain people have always known how to end the use of wars, against any opposition, is found in the understanding of the balance.

Quite amusingly, it is still possible to effect Saddam Hussein categorically winning the war against the US invaders and occupiers, while he remained in his prison cell, completely ignorant of what therefore happened. His primary defense lawyers need only learn the related knowledge. The process to learn the knowledge would only require the additional questions resolving the amusing contradictions of manifesting the result for a person in a prison cell, ignorant of what was credibly done in his name. Upon learning the process of how to resolve complex contradictions, no contradictions can be too complex to efficiently resolve. But, of course, in addition to Saddam Hussein's defense lawyers not reading these words, and not understanding them if the lawyers did read them, there would be little incentive to effect that event, which likely precludes it from happening, but there was no lack of incentive, found in the benefits of advanced knowledge, to devise the process to effect that event, sustainable against any questions and therefore any human actions, and so it was devised. The puzzle required about five minutes of consideration, and produced great amusement.

As a related aside, most Americans would be amused to learn precisely where computer programs sent the internet's early (current) emails ostensibly addressed to institution leaders, which was a computer replication of the same concept for earlier phone calls and letters. Communication to power-damaged minds is institutionally orchestrated to effect the convincing illusion of flattery and support for what the power-damaged minds are doing, or effect a concurrent defense mechanism related to the specific communication, or the communication is ignored by the process. You cannot successfully convey useful knowledge of a contradiction resolution to an institutionally power-damaged mind, or there would be no remaining institutional contradictions after the test of time has been more than ample. If the question is not formed by the power-damaged mind, the answer cannot be recognized as useful knowledge, by that mind, by design, including all minds functioning within the institution. If you suggest otherwise, ask more questions of your resolution to ascertain whether it is an actual resolution, and thus sustainable, or a rhetorical illusion that creates another contradiction seemingly resolving a contradiction. If you identify a contradicted resolution, the other mind will identify your contradiction. If your resolution is not contradicted, a self-contradicted (power-damaged) mind will not understand it, until you learn how to successfully convey contradiction resolutions to power-damaged minds.

The human mind learns new knowledge by formulating questions and answers, not by encountering statements of fact or reasoning.

If you are not asking and answering questions while reading this website, which was written as a mechanism for the author to ask and answer questions to insure than his statements were as accurate as currently ascertainable by him and observers, subject to the later-discovered questions that progressively resolve the remaining contradictions, for the process of learning the knowledge of how to efficiently resolve inordinately complex contradictions, you would be wasting your time.

Your goal, if you wish, is to learn the complete process of institutional defenses against advanced knowledge, not to defeat that process, but to synthesize that part of the knowledge puzzle of how to resolve the most complex contradictions humans can create. Resolving the contradiction of the Iraq war, to the benefit of the person resolving it, and obviously to society, simply requires that one learn such knowledge. Saddam could have learned it, before he lost his war. George could learn it, before he loses his war, if he does not wait too long.

Select any four or five diverse institutions whose leaders are each manifesting an obvious contradiction, as are all institution leaders. Verify each contradiction and its resolution, without creating another contradiction, then tenaciously try to convey the knowledge of each resolution to the respective leaders. You will, of course, fail, in that regard, but your goal is to learn each of the trite institutional defenses against useful knowledge, to then use that knowledge to learn how to resolve the contradiction of that defense against knowledge.

Among those institutions, consider the Libertarian Party, which says all the seemingly accurate words in relation to human rights and the flaws of wars, in seeming contradiction to the actions of the RepublicratDemocan Regime, but then manifests the same institutional defenses against new knowledge, as do the DemocanRepublicrats and all other political parties. That the Libertarian Party leaders have not learned the readily available knowledge of how to manifest their espousals, regardless of opposition, instead of only espouse their espousals, is obvious. They too are clueless of how to win the Iraq war, as is verifiable against every question. They obviously need new knowledge if they actually sought to manifest their espousals, but their minds are limited to the organizational manifestations of human fundamentals, by design, therein defending their institution against useful knowledge, and thus laughably hopeless for anything but another institutional example of failure, from whom others can learn the knowledge of the concept.

Invest whatever time you need to identify and verify the institutional commonalities shared by the pro war and anti war organization leaders, the pro gun and anti gun organization leaders, pro abortion and anti abortion, pro gay and anti gay, etceteras across the spectrum of purportedly opposing organizations. Those institutional leaders equally ignore, flee or attack the questions that create the knowledge they could use to promptly achieve their espoused goals, against any opposition, much to your inordinate entertainment if you carry out that process. George is just an example among them. He could win his war, but for fear of the harmless questions that would convey to his mind the knowledge to do so, identical to those of the peace organizations which purport to oppose George's war, George and his military thugs will continue to slaughter people and lose George's war, to define George as the worst president the US has endured, so far.

All leaders have more in common with each other, including those who purport to want to kill each other, than any of them have with their followers, by the human mind's design in relation to institutional effects. And their gullible institutional followers, by the same design of the human mind's response to institutional stimuli, literally cannot understand or believe these words, because, like the leaders, they do not ask questions of these words, writing them, and writing the answers. The many highly educated, titled and credentialed peace organization leaders cannot understand the words you are reading, and cannot comprehend that they are failing their espousals because they are reacting to new knowledge with the identical process that George and his war mongers react to new knowledge. None of them simply carried out the simple learning process of questioning diverse institution leaders with common questions about their obvious institutional contradictions, to evaluate the fundamentally identical responses, for the inordinately useful knowledge that can therefore be further questioned to learn the more advanced knowledge of how each leader can easily manifest their espousals. Is not the job of a leader to think and learn useful new knowledge?

George could have won a war against Iraq, before starting it, and easily defeated Saddam Hussein, leaving him no quarter even with his Sunni colleagues, without firing a shot, because Saddam had so thoroughly contradicted himself by using power above reasoning, slaughtering and torturing people, and more. But George did not learn the knowledge of how to resolve contradictions, so he could not resolve Saddam's manifested contradictions to the benefit of George.

Therefore George, a typical power-damaged mind, using power above reasoning, identical to Saddam, effecting the results of a power-damaged mind, duplicated Saddam's contradictions, slaughtering and torturing people, and more, oblivious to the concept that no contradiction can sustainably resolve another contradiction. All contradictions and therefore arrays of contradictions are doomed. No human holds any ability to sustain any contradiction.

Because power-damaged minds attempt to resolve contradictions with contradictions, George's war, inherent to wars, spiraled into such an escalating array of increasingly damaging contradictions, that therefore even his colleagues of power-damaged minds in congress and his executive branch increasingly cannot tolerate those damages. The damages are reaching George's colleagues, their colleagues and too many of their neighbors, inherent to wars. When the gullible Americans belatedly tally the cost of George's wars, even in only dollar value while so many beneficial projects lacked dollars in the US, some of those neighbors are going to be a bit more miffed at the RepublicratDemocans.

Saddam was defeated, as a superficial explanation, because his military would not defend him or his military generals because his contradictions damaged too many of the families, friends and neighbors of too many military chaps. For how long can George and any other US presidents keep fooling their military chaps after the US DemocanRepublicrat regime has reneged on all of its promises to military chaps, stripped their families, friends and neighbors of every right described in the US Constitution, subjected them to a police state that honors no law protecting the common people from corrupted government power, and taxed them into slavery to the US military industrial complex? The time is immaterial. The event is a certainty, as with the collapse of all power-based institutions.

All power is self-defeating, by design. Power serves only itself, and never humans. Until your mind verifies the previous two sentences, from your mind's questions, that knowledge is useless for your mind's decisions, as is the case with George and all power-damaged minds. The process of power is flawlessly learnable, to thus learn how to more promptly facilitate its inherent self-defeat, for your benefit. Reasoning is sustainable. It is the process that can effect learning the controlling contradiction of power.

As a related example of reasoning, the perfect war, within the concept of using force, if it could be sustained, would progressively create each next enemy and group of enemies as the previous battles kill the people related to the people on the periphery of the war (collateral damage), or ruin their life efforts, inherent to war, to thus really anger them, or who recognize that the currently dominant force cannot trust those who might be related to, or friends of, people who were killed, and who must kill them before they might retaliate, who therefore inherently retaliate by joining the war, because their enemy taught them that war is the resolution to a perceived contradiction, and so forth until one of the last two people on the planet kills the other over their inherently different perceptions, including their inherent fear and distrust of someone who kills to resolve a perceived contradiction, leaving the last person to belatedly recognize that his enemy therefore becomes his own mind, because he may recognize the obvious error in his actions, a contradiction, and thus become untrustworthy in a process of killing people as the resolution to that perceived contradiction, and thus kill himself in defense. The extension of the process to its logical extreme, without the influence of the knowledge that precludes the extreme, illuminates controlling contradictions within the process. If killing people creates even one contradiction, while one or more people are therefore taught that killing people is the resolution to the contradiction, you must either kill all humans, or none, or they will kill you. There is no logic-based or reasoning-based demarcation for stopping the killing, as a process to resolve the contradiction of killing, after the war is started, without illuminating the contradiction of starting the war. Who would follow therefore idiot leaders who did not simply perform the thinking process (asking and answering questions) to ascertain and verify that controlling concept before starting a war, if not idiots of the same ilk who therefore create their problems and make fools of themselves expressing frustration at the existence of the resulting problems? If you suggest some alternative between the extremes, you illuminate the ignorance that explains why humans still enjoying their second most popular hobby, yet complain about it, still mired deep within the intellectual dark ages, too lazy to ask the questions that identify the contradictions and therefore the resolutions, much to the amusement of the observers. If you cannot produce the reasoning that contains no contradiction, for your actions, because you lack patience or intellectual ability, the next person, or the results of time, will easily discover your contradiction(s) and therefore use them to defeat you and your inherently untenable actions at any time of their choosing, sooner or later.

There is no unflawed reasoning that can create a contradiction.

Therefore, instead of previously having to only resolve Saddam's obvious contradictions to defeat Saddam and his institution, to win George's war, George must now resolve all of Saddam's contradictions, plus those of his colleagues, relatives, friends and US-attacked bystanders, who are retaliating in rational defense against George's malicious war machine, plus all of George's own newly created contradictions, including those of the Americans who are inherently being betrayed for having supported George's creation of inherently untenable contradictions. Therefore, the contradiction in sum has become exponentially more complex, inherent to attempting to resolve a contradiction with a contradiction.

No problem. It is just a more complex contradiction, merely requiring the extension (a bit more time) of the same contradiction resolution process, methodically resolving each contradiction, efficiently done by identifying and resolving controlling contradictions, which would result in George belatedly winning his war that he could have more efficiently won sooner.

However, at a definitive time or event, George will no longer be able to win his war, because his abject, miserable defeat, and thus that of the Americans, will be a matter of history, like that of the Roman empire, and the war's extensively damaging consequences will be those which other people will have to solve by learning contradiction identification and resolution process, or endure because they choose to remain as ignorant as the idiot institution leaders they gullibly support.

Saddam lost his war because he failed to learn new knowledge. So will George.

These words and other such descriptions of George's doomed war, and the openly offered knowledge to have precluded that result, will be noticed in later years, by people laughing at the ignorance of institution leaders back in these days.

Why did the Roman Empire fail to preclude the social damages of these petty, currently warring factions on the planet, if not the reason the American empire is perpetuating them, on schedule, in the name of precluding them, for the same inherent results?

Tell George, or any institution leader, that he cannot learn new knowledge from those who flatter or support him and thus desire material benefit from his currently failing knowledge, while those who illuminate his amusing contradictions, because he has nothing to offer them, because he has not yet resolved his contradictions, may hold the knowledge (50 percent chance) of how to resolve one or more of his contradictions. Therefore, his only source of new knowledge to resolve any of his ongoing contradictions, is among those who do not flatter him, and for another reason, who are outside all institutions. You will not be able to successfully convey that knowledge to George, but until your mind verifies that statement, with the knowledge sustainable against all questions, you will not be able to learn how George or you can promptly win George's Iraq war or sustainably resolve any other contradictions.

Enjoy the laughter at he who will be recognized as the worst US president, because that is all he knows how to offer the world, and he refuses to learn new knowledge, but that is enough for just another petty empire's current leader.





Another analogy, for you subsequent use of the knowledge... 17 November 2005

So the villager came to the Governor General of the Province, who commanded her police, military and courts.

And the villager said to her: This man whom all the people of the village know, an evil man who has attacked other people, has killed my parents and stolen all we own. Several of the villagers saw him do so, and will testify in your court. He bragged about what he did, and lavishes in what he stole. You must rid our village of this evil person.

And the Governor General said to the villager: He is only ignorant, lacking the knowledge your parents failed to teach the young of the society, in regard to the reasoning for respect of each other's lives, rights and property. Perhaps you have now learned the benefit of teaching young people the reasoning for such respect, for your better security when the young grow older.

And the villager said to her: That is all? That is all? My parents were killed. Their property was stolen. You command the police, the courts and the military. You hold the power to impose justice. I came to seek justice. This criminal must be arrested, and executed or banished from the land.

And she said to him: Oh, I may have him killed, or appointed as Chief Sheriff of the Province. If I have him killed, I will be teaching the young that killing people is the solution to a problem. Is that not so? Is that not what created the problem? If I make him the Sheriff, he can do no harm because whatever he does will be enforcing the law, because he is the sheriff, therefore protecting the people, and he can lavish in what he takes from criminals, because they are criminals. But what I do is of no matter for your concerns. I have already learned the knowledge you yet lack, from my failures, not unlike yours. We are both free to teach the young, for, among other things, our security when we are older. Teach them as you wish, in the manner you perceive to be most effective, so that your children do not come to my successor with the same story about you. If I kill the person of whom you complain, to teach the young that killing people is the solution to problems, your task will be more difficult, and you may fail as did others of the village. Your concern is the knowledge you can learn from your new experience, a result of a previous failure, and what use you will make of it. Bring me your resulting questions, and your answers. I will give you more of that for which you would have more logically come to me. And learn to defend yourself, because I gave the sheriff, who was taught by the previous adults of the village, the inherently corrupting power I surrendered to learn from my previous failures.




One question, or more... 18 November 2005

Among those who do not learn how to ask twenty questions of what the less thinking, and thus less questioning, person asks in only one question, the alternative to using force, for lack of the knowledge revealed in the twenty questions, is often perceived as doing nothing, and criticized as such. Because using force, instead of reasoning, against fellow humans, and thus their minds, will ultimately fail your every related goal, and because doing nothing in face of a contradiction does not resolve the contradiction, ask the next question, while the less thinking person displays his ignorance by demanding the use of force, as the only conclusion illuminated by his one question.




Your test... 19 November 2005

Write your own test questions, and answer them...


Reuters, Yahoo News

House rejects Iraq pullout
Sat Nov 19,12:15 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a maneuver to strike at Iraq war critics, the Republican-led House of Representatives engineered a vote on Friday on a resolution to pull U.S. troops immediately from Iraq, which was defeated nearly unanimously.

End excerpt


Three congressmen voted to support the immediate withdrawal of US Troops in Iraq. How shall you identify your reasoning for their decision, sufficient to stand against the vast majority, to thus advance your knowledge regardless of any knowledge or reasoning those three congressmen may have used? They are DemocanRepublicrat congressmen, power-damaged minds, so your reasoning, if you write it, will likely be superior to theirs.

If you want to know the future, look to the people who do not acquiesce to the contradicted illusions of the majority who define only the present. Then ask questions.

Look to the minority with the courage to express opposition to the more powerful majority. The minority may be correct or incorrect, but because it does not represent power, it attempts reasoning, sometimes successfully. Reasoning will serve you well, if you verify its accuracy. Power serves only itself, and never humans. The majority defines power, not reasoning, or it would be identified as the most reasoned position, rather than the majority.

1. Write the numbers of American troops killed and wounded in the Iraq war as of 19 November 2005.

2. Write the number of Iraqi people killed and wounded in the American-Iraq war, as of 19 November 2005, and multiply that by 10 to identify the number of people who therefore learn to hate the Americans who started the war and its slaughter in Iraq.

3. From the related news, guess and write the numbers of homes and businesses in Iraq, destroyed and damaged by American artillery, bombs and small arms fire.

4. Likewise, guess and write the percentage of hours consumed by Iraqis, resulting from the war destruction of their electrical, water, sewer, fuel, schooling, medical and other common social systems.

5. Write the total American tax dollars spent on the war.

6. Now, on any date thereafter, of occasional convenience for the learning exercise, write the number of the additional Americans and Iraqis killed and wounded, the additional number of destroyed homes, businesses, human-hours lost to the additional social systems destruction, American tax dollars spent on the war, and the addition number of people therefore hating the American war mongers.

7. On each of those dates, write your description of the ultimate consequences, which you would be willing to defend with verifiable statements, in your name on permanent public record, in answer to any questions any person could ask, such as if you were a congressman facing your constituents.

8. Who thought enough to calculate those numbers of American and Iraqi killed and wounded, destroyed Iraqi homes, businesses and social systems, otherwise productive person-hours lost, tax dollars spent, and the enemies thus created, while the majority of DemocanRepublicrats in congress, with the support of their unquestioning and thus gullible American minions, did not think enough to ask such questions, and engineered a political image vote to stay the course of destruction, in doomed defiance of the results readily illuminated by the referenced numbers, and their ongoing escalation?

The majority, incensed by the existence of such questions, routinely panders the illusions of benefits from the war, and asks no questions of their illusions. What benefits did Americans derive from the Vietnam war? What benefits did the Soviets derive from their Afghan war? Why is there an Iraq war if the US gained the previously claimed benefits from its wars in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, the previous Iraq war, and all the covert CIA/military killing in other countries? Who flees such questions, rather than answers them for public record to judge the answers against the test of time, then therefore left with the ignorance of fleeing questions, starts another war?

However intellectually advanced beyond their DemocanRepublicrat colleagues in the majority, the three congressmen who were intelligent enough to simply question themselves to identify the obviously doomed future of the Iraq war, are still RepublicratDemocans, supporting their regime to cling to their personal power, the reason the US started the Iraq war and continues to fund it. They do not know how to ask the next questions to learn the knowledge of how to manifest their desire to beneficially end the destruction that will cost Americans far more than the current price.

9. If the Iraq war continues in the general manner of the previous two years, because the American war leaders have already proven that they do not know how to do anything different, just as the Vietnam war progressed, and as did the Soviet-Afghan war, the inherent result of a powerful nation attacking a small nation that did not attack the powerful nation, under the current limit of international tolerance for such wars, at what numbers of Americans and Iraqis thus killed and wounded, homes and business destroyed, tax dollars spent, person-hours lost to social systems destruction, Iraqi children driven into the child labor industry, and new enemies therefore hating Americans, will the majority of the US Congress belatedly conclude that the cost of its war vastly exceeds any achievable benefit, as with all such wars?

10. Would not the answer to question number 9 have been logically ascertained, by genuine leaders therefore asking and answering related questions (thinking) before starting the war, or otherwise on each day thereafter, if US Congressmen functioned on leadership reasoning ability rather than majority (mob) rule wielding brute force of heavily armed, unquestioning idiots therefore doomed to lose wars started by idiots?

11. Who would be sufficiently intelligent, and who would be too ignorant and cowardly, to ask question number 9, in congress, for the official US government answer for public record?

12. If question number 9 is not asked and answered by the US Congress, and the course is stayed by the majority of the DemocanRepublicrat congressmen, is it not inherent that the war in Iraq must proceed to the death of all Iraqis, and the destruction of all their cities and social systems, regardless of the cost to Americans, or instead proceed to the inherent defeat of the Americans, by definition of the question?

Enjoy the comedy, while the numbers rise to the belated recognition of the majority idiots in congress. The inherent results of the US-Iraq war again prove the ancient contradiction and idiocy of supporting idiots who start wars.




TV knowledge... 21 November 2005

Watch the television news and documentaries, as classic examples representing the following concept among most humans, carefully listening to the news journalists, commentators, officials, experts, educators, scientists and their institutional ilk. PBS is saturated with such entertaining examples.

Write notes on specific words that are expressed.

Humans train their minds with the words they use, and the words used by the people they believe.

Count the separate phrases that include words whose meanings obviously do not apply to the actual items, events, concepts and actions being described. Such words are often used to exaggerate the magnitude of the items and actions, to enhance the entertainment value of the supposedly scientifically based shows, and impress fools for the speaker's ego or money interests.

Did you want an arsenal of knowledge, an arsenal of scientific instrumentation, and arsenal of medical drugs, an arsenal of facts, an arsenal of laws, an arsenal of evidence, a rhetorically impressive arsenal of this, arsenal of that, and arsenal of everything except weapons or their storage facility? Or did you want an amount or number of them? PBS routinely wants the arsenals rather than the knowledge.

Fools are of course, impressed. But notice that the speakers incessantly misapply such words in a routine, casual manner which demonstrates that the speakers genuinely believe their words, while the contexts of the words obviously contradict the meanings of the words, creating contradictions.

Oh, you say that you know what the words, and the thousands of other examples, really mean, from the context of their use. Yes, but only upon specific question, such as herein, which is a time-consuming diversion while the speaker does not grant you that time. The speaker continues pandering more contradicted words. Therefore your mind is attempting to synthesize, without contradictions, an expanding series of rapidly conveyed contradictions, which could have as easily been uncontradicted data. Your mind will fail to do so, by training. Synthesized or combined contradictions create further contradictions, inherently leading your mind away from uncontradicted conclusions.

Your mind is not what you flatter it to be. It is a trainable and training-dependent contradiction identification and resolution device that can only synthesize data at a specific rate and ability for which you train it. If you do not train your mind to recognize each contradiction-containing word and phrase expressed by the idiots who pander themselves as institutional educators, scientists, experts, officials, news journalists and such titles, as fast as they express the contradictions, by having prior, more slowly, methodically asked real questions of identified contradictions, and having written your answers to train your mind, and subjected those answers to unlimited questioning, so that it can synthesize uncontradicted data from contradicted data, you are a fool fooling yourself to believe that you know what is really being said with words that do not hold their meanings, expressed by minds that are perceiving real phenomena not represented by their nebulous words. You hear their words, and cannot access the perceptions of their minds.

Now consider that you need to solve a problem, which constitutes the resolutions of contradictions, and you perceive that you must turn to people who are knowledgeable in regard to matters of the problem.

But who in your society was trained to recognize the resolutions of contradictions, while all the news journalists, commentators, educators, officials, experts, scientists, lawyers, their institutional ilk and the fools who believed them, trained their minds to create contradictions by using words which did not hold their meanings, without a clue of what they did, and therefore remain ignorant of both the contradictions they created, and any resolutions. If they could understand how to resolve contradictions, without retraining their minds, they could not understand how to express the resolutions with words that held their meanings, by prior training, and thus could not understand how to resolve contradictions, which explains why the PBS folks and their ilk throughout all institutions are forever whining about problems that seem to never be solved despite all the descriptions of solutions which are expressed with words that do not hold their meanings and thus cannot be successfully utilized to manifest actual solutions.

Therefore, you, as an individual human, are on your own if you want to learn how to actually solve a problem (resolve contradictions). If you learn how to identify and resolve contradictions, by simply leaning how to use words that hold their meanings, and then ask and answer the logical questions of any contradiction, you will indeed be on your own, noticeably, amid a society of self confused, unquestioning sorts who believe, rather than question with words that hold their meanings, the educators, experts, officials, scientists, news journalists and their institutional ilk who are using words that do not hold their meanings and thus training their minds to be ignorant of how to use words to identify and resolve contradictions, forever self confused without solutions to laughably simple problems.

PBS is classic in that regard because it presents more fundamentally flawed, so called documentaries and science shows that advance more fundamental social ignorance than the other stations which do not claim that their shows are documentaries and such. If you learn why birds have colorful feathers, with words that do not hold their meanings, you are guessing about why birds have colorful feathers, and if you believed the bird expert, you trained your mind to believe and use words that do not hold their meanings, to thus become more fundamentally ignorant in regard to all other information communicated to you and by you, with language.

After the PBS exercise, perform the same exercise with your own written and spoken words, extensively. Yes, I know that the National Park Service pigs and such government thugs, whom I occasionally reference as pigs, are not pigs, but I have apologized to farmyard swine for slighting their good character by equating them to National Park Service rangers. You must identify each such contradiction in your words, and resolve it. You may retain up to three common word contradictions, for your amusement, without flawing your other perceptions, if you routinely express your recognition of the contradictions, and the resolutions, to maintain your mind's trained ability to do so. You must be able to recognize and openly resolve your every other contradiction the moment it is expressed and verified. You must train your mind to retain no contradiction above flawless logic for all data available to humans. That process becomes amusingly easy, and priceless in value to you, upon learning controlling contradictions.

Now imagine what would result from the effects of even just scientists, such as medical scientists, regardless of every other institutionally identified sector of society, who learned how to consistently use words that held their meanings, and thus how to immediately recognize contradictions the moment they are expressed or revealed, and how to ask questions, using words that held their meanings, that efficiently revealed answers using words that held their meanings, resolving those contradictions. Consider the effects of medical scientists learning the knowledge of how to promptly resolve arrays of socially induced contradictions currently existing within her minds' perceptions. That knowledge, resolving existing contradictions, would make available for yet more advanced contradiction resolution process, contradiction resolution neural routing arrays otherwise cluttered or hindered by contradicted concepts. Their brains would become exponentially more efficient and effective for their pursuit of new scientific knowledge benefiting themselves and society.

The results would be a quantum advancement of knowledge in that arena of interest. But the scientists who would learn such knowledge currently not existent among scientists, would be subjected to normal every-day social interaction that so consistently defies the concept, that the scientists would spend their time laughing robustly at the comedy of humans who remained ignorant of the utility of language and their minds, by their common communication of confused word meanings. The scientists would also be unable to convey their quantum advancement of knowledge, by the use of language, to the general population who could not understand the common English words of the scientists because those words could not convey the knowledge inherent to the meanings of the words to people who trained their minds to not understand the use of words that held their meanings.

Of course no scientists who might stumble upon these words can comprehend or believe that their minds' process is profoundly impaired by a fundamental contradiction, because they are scientists, whose institution trained them to believe, rather than question, the perceived fact that they, and thus their minds, learned how to be objective to all knowledge, by the same process that politicians were trained by their institution to believe, rather than question, their laughable lies, and that they can successfully make decisions for other minds, and force those decisions into existence, as was done to effect the related perceptions of lawyers, news journalists, experts and their institutional ilk whose perceptions are routinely proven as false illusions by comparing their words, which obviously do not hold their meanings, with the resulting social manifestations.

Humans as a species, and their societies, only advance to the extent that the involved general population providing the general social needs, understand the knowledge that can advance them. Therefore, as long as the scientists, educators, officials, experts, news journalists, lawyers, their institutional ilk and the gullible lot who believe them rather than question them, continue to train their minds to use words that do not hold their meanings, accumulating a PBS popularized arsenal of knowledge therefore useful only for destruction, to impress and fool fellow fools, and therefore not understand words that hold their meanings, they will continue to stagnate themselves in the intellectual dark ages, useful only as entertainment for the observers.

Extricate yourself. Simply train your mind to use words that hold their meanings, such as by performing the above referenced exercise, and thus soon learn the reason to laugh yourself to tears at the current humans, especially the self-confused scientists.




Yours and theirs for the asking, and they will not ask... 2 December 2005

It does not matter what human-caused problem is being discussed, no matter what degree of complexity, magnitude, perceived impossibilities or mysteries, no matter how much social grief has been endured for how long. You can look at the people discussing their issue, and tell them that the flawless solution is inherently available to them, and has been since the problem, or the perception of it, was invented. You can then smile or laugh, knowing they cannot understand what you have said, or they would have been asking the type questions that you would have recognized as efficiently advancing toward their recognition of the solution.

Doing so may advance your recognition of the solution, while they obviously remain clueless.

They will respond with the usual useless comments that are obviously everything except the type questions that can identify individual contradictions that can therefore be easily resolved to create or make evident the next contradiction with existing perceptions, to therefore question for the same purpose in a methodical process to synthesize the flawless solution from uncontradicted answers to related questions.

But one among them, usually the person at the side who was not saying much, may ask a useful question, which would require that you have thought enough, perhaps from reading these words, to attempt an answer which you would write, to which you would ascribe your name and the date. Therein you will have started the process, for yourself and that person, while the others remain clueless.

Or you can suggest that the process to identify the readily available, flawless solution can be identified by learning how to ask and answer effective questions, with a good exercise in that regard available by answering any couple dozen of the questions asked on the pages of Think.ws.

Because the possibility of any person in the group asking an effective question, is so rare that you will likely not be challenged by anything but what created and is designed to perpetuate their own confusion, or their discussion would have already identified the solution they sought, your smiling or laughing will enhance your mind's incentive to ask your own questions, of your own mind, relating to the problem they are discussing, to advance your knowledge.

You may therefore recognize why wise persons throughout human history have routinely stated, often with a smile: "They must learn on their own."

Do so. The resulting entertainment cannot be improved by humans, because it is the humans, the only known species which includes individuals that can express and act on a damaging contradiction to the knowledge the individuals hold in their minds, which otherwise precludes the contradiction, by design.

With the knowledge they so desperately seek to solve the anguishing social problems endured for the history of humans, theirs for the asking, they will not ask, by the design you can learn by simply asking, much to your amusement.




Robots... 3 December 2005

One of the readily available opportunities is that of creating robots of such advanced intelligence that people will willingly acquiesce to their rule, because their rule will be verifiably more beneficial to the people than rule by any real human. Considering the categorical failure of human social leaders, the challenge for the robot is scant.

Humans need only create a mechanical robot of any likable form, and program its computer with intellectual technology, which only requires a computer programmer to easily learn intellectual technology.

Of course a human leader can learn the same knowledge for the same functional goal without the robot, but to do so usually eliminates incentive to manifest the results of the knowledge. Therefore, the popular human incentive to make such a robot which would not need incentive to manifest its knowledge, including the effects of that knowledge, is an available technique to manifest a superior form of social rule that everyone, including you, will appreciate, and under which society would thrive.

The robot will not be able to effect any harm, because that would create a contradiction, which is not logical. There is never need to effect any harm or other contradictions.

Upon learning the nature of the invention, the current human rulers would acquiesce to the rule of the robots, for their obvious benefit.

If there are any computer software and robotics chaps who would like to produce that robot, they may inquire.




The President's advisors... 4 December 2005

This, upon the new news articles about President George Bush, in desperation as usual, switching his spin-masters to those who are carefully countering the earlier spin-masters whose inherently doomed spins have spun out in face of George's inherently doomed Iraq war, while trying to keep fooling fools with the illusion of a consistently forward moving policy of, fill-in-the-blank.

Consider the advisor to the president, or any institutionally titled person who was taught by our modern institutions of schools, parents, adults, government agencies, organizations, society, etcetera.

Therefore, they do not know how to use words that hold their meanings, as is easily verifiable, and therefore do not understand these words which hold their meanings, as is easily verifiable.

The president and other institutional leaders obviously need the knowledge of how to manifest their espoused goals that are not being manifested. The current situation increasingly exposes the abject failure of each leader's current actions in regard to espoused goals, whose results are going to become painfully obvious and undeniable to society, such as the abject defeat of the American military in Iraq, on schedule, etceteras.

Ignorant of how to manifest the espoused goal, which could avoid glaring failure, and surrounded by people equally ignorant for the same reason, the leader routinely switches speech writers and rhetoric spinners, to portray the image that something is always being done to achieve the goal.

Of course the public, equally ignorant for the same reason, is easily fooled, for awhile.

But fooling fools, the description of government functioning since government was invented, by design of using force instead of reasoning, cannot stop the increasingly obvious results of force-based human actions. Each war and all other contradictions are eventually resolved, by design of contradictions, therefore proving the fools who created and supported the wars and other contradictions, as fools who are therefore simply useless for the advancement of the human phenomenon. For how long were the Germans, Egyptians, Japanese, Romans, Incas, British, Huns, Russians, Khans, Aztecs, Ottomans, Americans and thousands of such institutionally defined fools fooled into believing that their power-based empires were invincible?

Is not the sustainability of a reasoning-based society of humans, by any institutional definition, who are inherently predicated on reasoning, by design of their mind, inherent to the duration of large animal species on the planet, obviously beyond the duration of any power-based empire?

Now consider that the president or any institutional leader either learned how to use words that hold their meanings, or hired an advisor who uses words that hold their meanings, to describe the process to therefore easily manifest any desired goal.

If language is useful for conveying useful concepts, to thus manifest them among society, as a repeated learning example, it is not possible for a DemocanRepublicrat to be honest and vote for a DemocanRepublicrat after any DemocanRepublicrat has verifiably lied and was not therefore removed from DemocanRepublicrat Party recognition of his association which demonstrates that DemocanRepublicrats are liars and therefore not honest. Any such example of creating and attempting to sustain a contradiction is equally useful.

The president's mind, and those of his DemocanRepublicrat (any institution) advisors, cannot understand or tolerate the above paragraph, as is verifiable, or they would not be DemocanRepublicrats, or they would openly describe themselves as liars. Therefore, in addition to their own inability to understand the above paragraph, they will not select any advisor who can understand it, and therefore they will not learn the related knowledge, for reason found in the definitions of the words in the foregoing sentence.

But the knowledge of how to promptly manifest the leader's espoused goals, resulting in universal public support for the leader, is easily identified in words that hold their meanings, which become understandable after learning how to simply use words that hold their meanings, which renders the inconsequential learning example about the RepublicratDemocan liars, as inconsequential. If George Bush or his advisors could learn the knowledge, they would laugh robustly, along with the public, at their having created and supported the contradiction, then resolve it, promptly solve America's social problems, and become the most respected leaders in human history.

The disguise of the simple knowledge that precludes institution leaders from learning how to promptly manifest their espoused goals, is so simple, that in the future, when humans belatedly emerge from the intellectual dark ages, during which school teachers, parents, adults, government leaders and their institutionally identified ilk taught their offspring to use words that do not hold their meanings, and thus not be able to understand words that hold their meanings, even children will then laugh themselves to tears when referencing the primitive human minds of today, especially the ones who lavishly heaped upon themselves titles and credentials, rather than knowledge.

If you want to win the American-Iraq war, for Bush, Blair, Iraq, al Queda, Osama, Saddam, Putin, Australia, the UN, Democans, Republicrats, Nobel Peace Prize Committee, etceteras, or manifest any other institutionally identified goal, you may inquire. The process is merely knowledge. It is conveyed with words that hold their meanings, which requires that one learn how to use and understand words which hold their meanings, which is why it cannot be understood by the aforementioned and their institutional ilk, much to the inordinate entertainment of the observers.




Islamic Superstate Domino Effect... 6 December 2005

Knight Ridder Newspapers, Posted on Mon, Dec. 05, 2005, By Drew Brown

Rumsfeld warns of Islamic superstate if U.S. leaves Iraq too soon.

WASHINGTON - If U.S. forces leave too soon, Iraq will become a haven for terrorists and the base of a spreading Islamic superstate that would threaten the rest of the world, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said Monday.

Now compare that with...

What the news media repeatedly parroted for the Secretary of Defense and Washington DC politicians talking about their Vietnam war back in the 60's and 70's:

If US forces fail to stop communism from taking over Vietnam, a resulting domino effect will topple the Asian governments, choke Australia into submission, and isolate the Americas.

Now compare that with every laughably obvious lie (contradiction) pandered by power-damaged minds throughout human history, as their excuses to militarily attack other countries, and use police forces to attack public sectors within their countries.

The enemy will get you, if you do not get him first. And he is the enemy because your leader said he is the enemy.

Write the sentences that power-damaged minds state as their excuses to use force against inherently equal human minds. Synthesize their commonality.

The US failed to stop communism from taking over Vietnam. The US government and news media lie was therefore exposed. There was no domino effect. Bush and Rumsfeld could read these words and would remain clueless of the concept that communism, like an Islamic superstate, American mob rule (democracy), Roman supremacy, and other such institutional illusions, hold their own controlling contradiction that defeats them when they are not being propped-up by an attacking enemy or the easily eliminated illusion of an enemy. Power cannot exist without an enemy, and therefore creates the pandered illusion of enemies, within power-damaged minds, by imperative.

Now consider the majority percentage of Americans who are so ignorant, unquestioning, and poorly educated by the government's public school teachers, therefore including the news journalists, as proven by each war, that they, and their offspring whom they render equally ignorant, will continue to support the war against Iraq, Afghanistan, and the next war started by the same or the next gaggle of equally ignorant RepublicratDemocan politicians with their equally ignorant military minions and dutifully parroting news journalists.

As an aside, wars and human rights violations by government would promptly end if American school English teachers simply taught students how to use words that held their dictionary meanings, but the English teachers cannot surrender their power created by using words that do hold their meanings.

Consider those Americans who are self-fooled into believing the news media stories about sixty percent of Americans not supporting the Iraq war, while they manifest all the actions that functionally support the therefore ongoing war.

Now, for the first part of this test, match the enemies with the enemies... Nazis, Jews, capitalists, communists, Islamists, Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Dividian Christians, other Christians, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Hindus, Muslims, Croatians, Serbs, imperialists, colonists, Fascists, Spanish, Basques, Chinese, Taiwanese, hemp smokers, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and as many others as you wish to list. For the moment, do not trouble your mind by considering the referenced enemies which include individuals who are also members of other groups which are not the enemies of the first enemies.

Now, for the second part of this test, identify the percentage of individuals among each of the above, who, by physical actions, identifiably damaged or harmed any identified individuals among their enemies. Write your answer, an easy approximation.

Now, for the third part of this test, accurately describe, for objective analysis, to which you would subject yourself if you performed the same action, the reasoning based reaction to each of those damaging actions effected by each individual human against each other individual human, separated from the rhetorical reference to the social group of each such individual.

Now, for the fourth part of this test, identify the percentage of the therefore laughably ignorant, above referenced enemies, who, during their entire life, did not think enough to formulate this simple test to question the validity and consequences of their perceiving rhetorical illusions as a reason to go to war or otherwise attack individuals, perceived as enemies, who did not harm them.

Who are you going to attack after a thereupon dead suicide bomber attacks your friends, without creating the reason, in your attack against someone who did not harm you, for the next suicide bomber who would otherwise not exist?

If your neighbor throws a rock at your dog, shall you throw a rock at his dog who may therefore bite you at an opportunity which the dog would not otherwise use?

Which Muslims whom you know, who have harmed no one, and have no interest in harming anyone, are going to rise up in an Islamic Superstate to attack you when the US is belatedly run out of Iraq, as Rummy threatens? Considering the history of the Sunni and Sheite Muslims, among others, precisely how are the Muslims (communists, socialists and other central authority sorts) going to create or maintain a Superstate without the inherent rise of dissidents from within, who preclude the Superstate? Why was there no communist domino effect superstate when the Americans were belatedly run out of Vietnam?

Rummy, and other such hate-filled, power-damaged minds, cannot comprehend the effects of curtailing their attempt to sustain the damaging contradictions they created, even if they read these words and are offered the verifiable answer to every question their minds can possibly formulate, plus all the questions their minds cannot formulate.

If you, including any social reference to which you ascribe, act to express or display your belief that an attack against any other individual identified by a reference to his social group, creates your safety from the illusion of a potential attack, you have defined yourself as the enemy of all people, and have identified the reason for others to logically attack you. Read that as often and as slowly as you wish to understand it.

You will always be your only enemy. Learn how to defeat your only enemy, to be left with no enemies.

The American wars against the potential of the American invented illusion of an Islamic Superstate, the communist domino game, the Dividian Christian religion, hemp plants, guns, and the long list of other rhetorical illusion enemies, resulting in the Americans slaughtering a yet increasing number of individual humans who harmed no one, describes the reason that the world will soon enough stop tolerating the enemy Americans, for the same reason the world could not continue tolerating the Romans, Khans, Huns, Ottomans, Nazis and other such malicious social groups whose leaders invented and attacked their enemies to therefore define themselves as enemies to an inherently increasing number of people.

If you are not laughing yourself to tears at the ignorance of these primitive humans, you are missing their only show.

If you are an Islamist (Muslim), one of the many minority groups in the world, you might be rightfully laughing robustly because your mere existence as a human among humans, has created so much self-induced fear in the minds of the power-mad American leaders and their unquestioning minions, that they have elevated your social group to the brink of a Superstate that will be achieved in American minds the moment the Americans inherently lose their war against the Iraqi people.

The Americans have made themselves so vulnerable to their illusions, that in addition to utilizing intellectual technology at its most efficient level, there are many lesser processes for the Iraqi freedom fighters to not kill another American, and humiliate them into the laughing stock of human history, abjectly defeated and never again able to use force of arms. But of course the Iraqi freedom fighters are foolishly doing what the Americans and all other military regimes taught them to do, to kill people as a perceived resolution to the contradiction created by killing people. They and the Americans are like two bulls butting heads between a fence, albeit slaughtering a lot of people in the process.

To successfully fool fools you must first fool your own mind, as has Rumsfeld and the other dolts of the American RepublicratDemocan Regime, as did Saddam and all power-damaged minds. They have fooled themselves into the belief that a Superstate, which will inherently collapse itself, sooner if left to its own failures, must be attacked to defeat it.

Such self-induced fear of illusions creates such inordinate vulnerability to reality that self-defeat is categorically inescapable. The Iraqi freedom fighters are defeating themselves by attacking people, but the Americans have done so against so many people for so long, that they are inordinately vulnerable to even the attacks of those who are therefore defeating themselves. Everything the Viet Cong leaders said about the Americans applies in Iraq, on schedule.

If you are laughing, you have most likely recognized the questions that easily advanced your knowledge beyond those who fear the Islamic Superstate, the Communist Domino Effect, and the Next Rhetorical Illusion pandered by fools so easily fooling fools addicted to the self-defeating game of killing the other guy to save us from the consequences of killing the other guy.

But your goal, if you wish, is to so thoroughly understand the power-damaged human mind, such as that of Donald Rumsfeld and Drew Brown, by continuing to ask and answer more questions, asked by neither of those dolts, until your description can be defended against every question, to thus hold the knowledge of the human phenomenon, for its utility to your mind.

Iraq war - Islamic superstate. Vietnam war - Communist domino effect. Panamanian war - deluge of drugs into America. Grenada war - Cuban communist expansion. Allowing women to vote - collapse of the society. Tolerating human rights - chaos. Allowing the suggestion that Earth revolves around the sun - the wrath of god. Ad infinitum. Who did not ask which questions? Ask them, and therefore never again associate your mind with the institutional leadership fools whose laughable ignorance is illuminated by time and the questions of those who are sufficiently intelligent to simply ask questions.

Rumsfeld could read these words, and his mind would therefore be angered or confused, inherent to a power-damaged mind that sees an expression of its glaring contradiction which only exists because such a mind trained itself to never question contradictions to the extent of their resolution. Rumsfeld goes to sleep at night fearing an inherently unachievable, self-contradicted Islamic Superstate, and believing that an (equally flawed) American or Christian Superstate can prevent that fear among all people by killing anyone who objects, to therefore create the fear of a Christian or American, power-based Superstate that therefore cannot sustain the support of commonly intelligent people. All empires collapse because, by one description, they become dependent upon gullible fools fooled by even such fools as Rumsfeld, Saddam, Bush, Blair, Putin and their power-craving ilk, much to the open laughter of everyone who simply questions contradictions to the extent of their resolutions. How many fools are needed to sustain the rule of greater fools, if even one person starts asking questions?





1,000 years of knowledge in 1 year.... 7 December 2005

If you, the reader of these words, 20 years old, or thereabouts, if you are, could learn, and you can, easily, if you ask, how many parts of the entire knowledge puzzle you will learn per year or decade of your life, by average verifiable by certain questions, you would be able to calculate how many parts of the knowledge puzzle exist, verifiably, and simply ask more questions per unit of time, to learn each part sooner, to learn the resulting knowledge (an exponential process), which can make available to your mind the knowledge of a perceptive person of 1,000 years old, or more, by age 21, or thereabouts, if you are.

No human, no matter how flawlessly they can prove and verify their knowledge of the entire puzzle of the human phenomenon, if exhaustively questioned, can successfully convey that knowledge to your mind with written or spoken words, until your mind formulates the questions whose answers constitute that knowledge. The questions are everything. Ask them. Write your questions. Write your answers.

Do that with the time wasted by everyone else instead reading more of these words which attempt to closely match the arrangements of words your mind recognizes to create incentive to start that process, because the results are exponential.




Events are a controlling concept.... 8 December 2005

People describe time, and the events throughout time, as that which advances knowledge.

Delete the time. Simply do not state the word, "time".

Time is the subordinate concept.

The events are the controlling concept.

The events result from the use of knowledge.

Simply learn the knowledge sooner, by asking and answering more questions in a shorter period of time, and use that knowledge to create the events, and therefore, knowledge that is recognized by others (society), will advance sooner.

But if you learn how to do that, beyond everyone else, promptly create the events, regardless of your errors for lack of asking more questions, or you will ask them, and learn your errors, and laugh at the possibility that you could have manifested those errors, and you will then continue advancing in knowledge far beyond those who stopped asking questions sooner to therefore use their knowledge to create events from which those who did not ask as many questions, learn sooner.




Actions A and B... 9 December 2005

If after every question that any human can understand to ask, the only uncontradicted answer remaining is to manifest the flawlessly described action of "A", which is therefore sustainable against every question that any human can understand to ask at that time, and thus leave you with no more knowledge or power than everyone in society who learns the same knowledge from the same questions, but the described action of "B" is demanded as the manifestation by a majority of the people, who did not answer as many questions, and, because of your institutionally recognized position among that majority, you will acquire all the benefits any human can physically achieve if you simply state your support of action "B", among your social colleagues who demand that action, will you state your support for action A, or B?

Your answer will identify whether you learned anything from this website, if you did not already hold that common knowledge.

Use your knowledge.

Question it, with written questions, and answers.

You will then laugh yourself to tears at those who did not ask such obvious questions. You will pity them, and be embarrassed that you were one of them for so long, much to your separate amusement.



Power is the same as power... 10 December 2005

The observable and consistently verifiable fact that American court judges, among other government power-damaged minds, who consistently mouth the therefore meaningless words that the US is under the rule of written law, literally cannot surrender to the rule of written law above the rule of their personal power of office effected by their verbal decrees in the name of law and in consistent contradiction to prevailing laws, is only one of the indicators of the hilariously laughable ruse of the US government effecting anything other than the power-based ruse that Saddam had going, for Iraq, that fools fools and insures the continuation of the killing in Iraq, and the escalating repression of human rights, until the reason for the fall of the American Empire, and all other power-based empires, becomes common knowledge of societies.

The laughably unnecessary corruption of power is illuminated by the power-damaged mind flawlessly believing that it can successfully make decisions for another inherently independent human mind holding different arrays of knowledge from which to synthesize logical conclusions.


End of Intech Concepts 25


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