My analysis of the world around me really goes quite deep!
With any decision there are two real choices, but in practice there are often 'sort of' three. This goes down to metaphysical concepts I mentioned in the last post, (but not explained).
There is positive that at the moment means freedom, negative that means enslavement... And the usual choice in this can- kicking wankerati reality... Unpolarised.
(Remember those days when it was thought in relation to Greece that they would actually be unable to kick the can any further... Aww... Bless!)
Where nothing really happens for some reason the can is kicked. (Obviously) But the energetic substructure (most sensible term, I know is a bit show off intellectual), the energetic substructure of the world is set up so the foundations are laid, the opportunity is there for all the resources to expand positively, or negatively, depending on which turn is taken.
If the whole society turns one way, we still have free will on an individual level, but the pressure is sometimes unbearable. If for instance you were in a Hillary Clinton America and you ran a business and she raised the minimum wage to $15 for your company. You have the free will to continue running that business and put in the extra money/ work, perhaps go into debt; technically. Practically of course you can't because you're not superhuman.
In Trumps America, you have free will, you are not forced to do anything in the same way as in Hillary's because he is positively polarised but keeping up the negatively polarised hatred is difficult. It can be done but it is a losing strategy that puts in a lot of time, effort and money and essentially reaps no reward. Also, business will be run better (less immigration and tax etc.) so it is easier to get a job and there will be more positivity. The gravity will simply be away from negatively polarised actions.
So, we had an EU referendum recently in Britain and I was just listening to LBC about how Farage would have handled it if he had been in charge. Clearly he summarised the most positive turn of events and before I heard it I was not aware of the positively polarised 'potential' situation we might have experienced.
Farage said that had he been running things on Englands behalf after the June referendum he would have run it like a business. He would fire the bureaucratic civil service and bring in business people; he would poach people from wherever in the world he could, such as other places that have good relations with the EU, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia etc.
Like Taxi Driver says but not for the same implication... 'Can you even imagine' how positive that would be? Unskilled immigration would stop, The free market would aggressively assert itself and it would really clean out the crap! Green taxes destroyed! The sanctimonious wankers in the EU would not be able to cope and the feeling of prosperity would take hold as though being shoved through a rollercoaster at Alton Towers.
Also, in my own workplace at roughly around the time of the referendum, just after June is when my old manager left. This guy was a very good manager, he hired a lot of English outside the pattern in the industry of hiring migrants and having a high turnover (although there was still a high turnover). Everyone liked him and he bent over backwards to help everyone. He could keep a leash on troublesome people but still use them for their good points and improve them (all positively polarised people have this effect of kind of turning lightly negative people more positive, Trump and Farage have done this a lot)... Of course, he did have his flaws. He did have his temptations that we all have.
Had we gone with Nigels plan, unskilled immigration would have stopped and other restaurants of that chain would suddenly be facing a bit of a shock, of which, having British workers would be an advantage and his store would look good! Taxes and/ or regulation would probably ease up slightly and the very real prospect of effective competition would enter the minds of upper management. I don't think this manager would have left. He would have worked with the other positive people there and the place would simply have kept its positive glow that it almost had but kept losing due to the ever escalating feeling of 'crisis' that constantly engulfed the place.
The way it turned out was the path of least resistance. Nine months of not negatively polarised (Voted remain, now you've voted for it so you are helpless against these awful policies!) And not positively polarised (Getting on with Brexit) But dilly dallying in between. Listening to people like Gina Miller whine and having it on the BBC for nine months; the only people more useless than bureaucrats.
Hope is on the way, perhaps things can positively polarise. It is clear that Theresa May partly did not trigger article 50 immediately so as not to encourage the Wilders vote. As she does not wish to encourage Le Pen (but has encouraged her rival) and only came round to supporting Trump to avoid the potentially catastrophic move of alienating America.
Farage may be running again in South Thanet and the Conservative there could even go to jail! Unlikely but exciting nonetheless. Arron is going to run a UKIP like the old UKIP but not run like a squash club. A breakthrough is going to happen soon at some time because positively polarised people are still active.
After my previous post I simply do not want to think of Islam. In general I do not judge Geerts political ideas on the subject negatively. I think there is a limit to how much leeway Muslims should be given and with the mass rape of white girls, FGM, No go zones etc. they have generally pushed it too far.
Interestingly, any failure to dominate by the Muslims and any push back will weaken the higher negative forces that are competing on this gameboard! With any luck this will have indirect benefits as well.