leadership policy and hypersaturation influence

rog has talked much about this and i wanted to correct what i wrote to bandelero regarding the political system.

i wanted to edit this and strike it out and replace it.

ocular_razor wrote:in regards to u.s. government configuration, it is best described with two-axes perpendicular to one another and in the shape of an x. typically on a one plane axis "the left" is democratic affiliation, "the right" is republic affiliation. but using this "x" sign, the horizontal (x plane) plane is a spectrum where the "left" side represents societal importance, and the "right" side represents economic importance. the vertical (y plane) plane is a spectrum of the means used to accomplish the goals of importance. left is by the iron fist of tyrrany, the right is not by the iron fist of tyranny (when looking at "the x sign", the line rising to the right starts at the bottom as tyrant and ends at the top as not tyrant)

and this is because i've fallen short of a proper explanation.

but it is best described (forgive my malexplanation and miscommunication) still with two axes, the x/y planes are a decent way to put it (though only considering the first quadrant). the x-plane regards economic importance while the y-plane represents societal importance. "the x sign" is then placed onto this quadrant (and this can represent the spectrum that when "societal importance" is favored, "economic importance" is less-favored). (if you draw it out it looks like an arrow pointing down and left). so in "the x sign", the line of the x declining to the right simply represents that the saturation of societal regards leaves the economic regard bone dry, while the line of the x inclining to the right represents that the saturation of economic regard leaves the societal regard bone dry.

"the far left" is at the top left of this graph, "the far right" is the bottom right and i think this is a decent spectrum.

where the governmental means to accomplish this is concerned (what i mean is the total involvement of policies and enforcement carried out) can be thought by adding to this graph a radius/line. the more that policies demand "social", the higher the extent of intrusion (essentially this is just a line going straight up). the more the policies demand "economy", the higher the extent of intrusion (a line going straight right). so it is socialism and fascism that are two seperate arms of tyranny.

what we find ourselves in is the unification of these two arms. previously when they were seperated, if the radius was measured at max social or economy demand, we would get a certain number we will simply call "5" for simplicity's sake. "5" just so happens to be where the saturation point occurs and i will explain. we only need to regard the declining part of "the x sign" for this (technically the incline could instead be regarded but the pivot point of the radius needs moved and we won't do this here). where both sides of the line intersect the actual x/y planes is the saturation point. being that "the x sign" was chosen for its equivalency, both sides saturate at 5.

what happens in the unification is we essentially bisect these x/y planes. as both arms of policy demands and enforcement have to be in use to be unified, we simply rotate (with the pivot being at (0, 0)) our radius until this line splits the difference between the two planes.

what is the importance of this? it is the blatant surpassing done by the radius (representing policy) of this (ultimately a) triangle formed by the declining line of "the x sign". it crosses over its natural influential range that is within the triangular bounds. as the triangle is the strongest shape, it should not be disregarded when it comes to "building" (building a sphere of influence that is political policy and enforcement of said policy).

the disregard is essentially hypersaturation and political demands that end up disregarding "the people" end up with poor results (let history be the witness), now take into account the unification and what you find yourself with is not only what our leadership has built for themselves but how something like this only has the option of collapsing in on itself.

Making money to hand out candies is a big part of American politics but I think most players are more interested in foreign slavery,oil and staking their hitler police states in other countries.

Rattatat wrote:I think most players are more interested in foreign slavery,oil and staking their hitler police states in other countries.

preach man.

AnxxietyAttacks wrote:

Rattatat wrote:I think most players are more interested in foreign slavery,oil and staking their hitler police states in other countries.

preach man.

Is that a compliment or diss. I'm not sure.

Rattatat wrote:

AnxxietyAttacks wrote:

Rattatat wrote:I think most players are more interested in foreign slavery,oil and staking their hitler police states in other countries.

preach man.

Is that a compliment or diss. I'm not sure.

its a compliment.
i wish some americans would have the balls to say those.
protesting not so much included because its BS protesting that only helps a niche population. not including that 99%/1% deal i suppose. though im tired of environmental protests and certain social protests that only speaks to a minority. if your a minority (small #) that speaks out on one of those..expect yourself to be covered by fascist control. like that last one.

ty

Rattatat wrote:...but I think most players are more interested in foreign slavery,oil and staking their hitler police states in other countries.

the players you refer is most if it is not all, yes. the economic/financial slavery though knows no bounds (so the concept of "foreign" and "other countries" i don't think applies).

and i say this (again i say this as it is global politics in general not american politics only) due to the global involvement and the interest of the few (who hold the debt token influence) who have hypersaturated their policies in order to obtain the object of their desires (more influence, and with more influence comes more enforcement which is only an effort to sustain the dishonest policies that cannot stand on their own as their base has been built on sand hypersaturated with water).

let us take a look at opec. nothing more than an economic trust between countries. their interest in coming into this financial agreement serves their economic interests (ultimately "societal regard" (which saturated is socialism) needs supported logistically and this is accomplished with "economic regard policies"). at the base of this they've regarded markets to be fueled by supply and demand, so they cooperate with each other (as per their arrangements/agreements) and will alter the supplies on their end (ultimately it is about striking a balance that helps enable them to maintain constant cash flow (as fluctuating market prices further serve to destabilize their business ventures)).

any resource is liable toward exploitation. it's one thing when the ending place of a market is dishonest, but when the starting place of a market is based on dishonest business practices (speculating when it is time to alter the market value) it can only serve to cause a dishonest ripple. granted that this dishonest ripple reaches american soil (as we buy a small percentage via opec) and we create our own dishonest ripples, it is very very very important rattatat to see that it is economic leaders in general that have their own interests in heart.

their are other oil exporting countries as well who aren't directly involved in financial trusts, but the dishonest ripple created from them is their willingness to participate in market speculation (as this serves their interests as well). all speculation is, is a long line of investors and [incomplete] statistical analysis based on future fears of the markets production, and it has nothing to do with what the bottom-line consumer is willing to pay for the product rather it only involves what those (who hold the debt token influence) have artificially inflated the value of the product to be.

there is yet another dishonest ripple (now i refer to america) created in policies that subsidize (shore-up with ever-increasing taxes) all kinds of energy production. while these businesses start production (they start only due to the labor completed by their peers) they partake in the same speculated markets and collect at the very least a double-dividend on their product (it is the taxpayer who gets this operation running, and then to partake of this product must pay again, a double-dividend). rattatat when you add on top of this the further inflating values of the product the company enacts (price gouging) it is to dishonestly fund the union workers (as some governmental [state] policy is put in place to only send subsidies where unions exclusivelly will be put on the contract) which unions have become nothing more than nepotism and bloodline-dynasties (also unions, due to their own debt-token influence, heavily invest in political campaigns and reap congressional kickbacks of their own).

ok, i think it's safe to say we got a decent picture at what dishonesty in economics gets us (this is a global issue rattatat far from american-exclusive). there is more of course.

ocular_razor wrote:ok, i think it's safe to say we got a decent picture at what dishonesty in economics gets us (this is a global issue rattatat far from american-exclusive). there is more of course.

American politics may have been about wat u first described but after 9/11 and Bush's reign the priorities in life changed where Americans became more like the Jews obsessed on all this evil around them. You say these problems are global but you don't stop to think why... it's because everyone else followed the mentally ill Americans traumatised from losing the chess game that they started.

Rattatat wrote:American politics may have been about wat u first described but after 9/11 and Bush's reign the priorities in life changed where Americans became more like the Jews obsessed on all this evil around them. You say these problems are global but you don't stop to think why... it's because everyone else followed the mentally ill Americans traumatised from losing the chess game that they started.

well rattatat i appreciate your enthusiasm i can only type so fast though. i should tell you though that it was long before nine eleven that american politics has changed it is actually closer to world war one. i am getting to this though and to explain (though there is merit in a lot of what you say) that there are countless diversions around.

Rattatat wrote:but I think most players are more interested in foreign slavery,oil and staking their hitler police states in other countries.

foreign slavery has been adopted by all countries who have signed the un charter. essentially each country is enslaved to another country. so far it is only economically (on the global scale we've reached the economic saturation (aka "fascism") already) that global policies are saturated. but for decades now the goals have still been in mind for global societal saturation (aka "socialism"), the only reason they've not been implemented completely is because logistically they cannot be carried out fully. stay with me here i stated this in my last post: ----ultimately "societal regard" (which saturated is socialism) needs supported logistically and this is accomplished with "economic regard policies")------

i gave the example of the triangle and hypersaturation (where the unification of societal and economic importance overextends the strength integrity of the triangle and leaves the only conclusion of collapse ("fallen is babylon the great")) not to explain the un (the un has yet to hypersaturate but the logistics part of the operation is complete) but rather the triangle was just to describe u.s. policy enforcement.

global politics is not about individual countries coming together (article one-oh-three of the un charter regards if a country's policy and the charter's policy conflict, the charter policy trumps. this involves nothing more than the disregard of country sovereignty). it is about debt token influence coming together.

with this, it is more than each foreign country being enslaved to another, it is about each foreign country being enslaved to policy (economic and societal) and enforcement of such policy (police state).

Rattatat wrote:...You say these problems are global but you don't stop to think why... it's because everyone else followed the mentally ill Americans traumatised from losing the chess game that they started.

rattatat i apologize if it seems like i am just sweeping your words under the rug (the last post i had it typed and then was told you got a response but i am trying to stay under post-length-limit).

is the severity of the matter hinged on who may or may not have made the first chess move? i've heard you say many times (paraphrasing your context here) that americans have the belief that justification "was needed" for iraq and afghanistan, and though i could've given you my personal opinion on the matter i didn't, but at the same time you asked not of my opinion and lumped me in with my political leadership.

there are indeed countless people who wanted neither a large invading force into iraq nor afghanistan, both the citizens and congressional members (albeit congress it wasn't enough). there are countless people who also say we've brought the one attack on ourselves, and also countless people who continue to say we still have no business in afghanistan.

no, the reason i have not been concerned with this small piece of the events in the present day and age (yes it is a very small piece on speculating who made the first chess move. we could discuss hussein in the nineties, the soviets in the eighties, reagan and iran in the eighties, how about the countless espionage that's taken place the last century, does the first move really matter?), haven't been concerned with it because it is global policy (adopted intiailly by more than just the americans, adopted finally by more than just the americans).

as it matters not the country who adopted global policy (remember since country sovereignty is trumped) so it is not the country that started the first/last chess move. it is policy that drove the first chess move. it is understandable to question the enforcement of such policy (to which the u.s. certainly is party to (not exclusively) but you still haven't lumped obama into here for some reason).

global policy is exactly this, global. the gears of economic saturation have been turning for long enough to become saturated. a country might deceive itself into thinking it is neither part of the economic-regard-policies or societal-regard-policies, but if a country has done any trading on the global marketplace it is just as guilty as anyone else who's adopted the un charter.

a country that tells itself it is not part of the problem is one that much-enjoys the economic debt-token influence that is bestowed its way. but this influence is temporary as to push forward societal-regard policies (the symbolism in revelations of the "ten kings of the earth" giving over their power to the beast is absolutely uncanny).