Young Lion's Saints Production
Sin Eater
Sin Eater
A sin eater is that angel who loves humans so much that it is willing to give up its heavenly being to save another. http://home.earthlink.net/~glepper/SinEaters.pdf Thus that angel was allowed to come to earth to save the souls of those humans who have acted much like an angel and forgave and thus gave. That does not mean that all sins will be eaten, nor does it mean that you will enter the gates if you sin. You must repent and mean it. This is usually in the form of economic transformation as the human soul feels worldly affects of natural needs of social, food, less stress and the such. For the sin eater finds and is allowed to by the way of divine inspiration to help those who it finds to be worthy.
This worthiness can be considered in many ways from the sinner eaters point of view. Much like Constantine or other human like angels of closeness to the other world. The sin eater may eat the sin so as to keep a possible from become an enemy and thus causing war and death and destruction. On the other hand the sin eater can eat sin from another sin eater who has been on earth to long and needs to go home. This then allows that sin eater to take some of that sin eaters sins from them to give them time to rest and relieve from the sins that are holding down the angles soul.
This worthiness can be considered in many ways from the sinner eaters point of view. Much like Constantine or other human like angels of closeness to the other world. The sin eater may eat the sin so as to keep a possible from become an enemy and thus causing war and death and destruction. On the other hand the sin eater can eat sin from another sin eater who has been on earth to long and needs to go home. This then allows that sin eater to take some of that sin eaters sins from them to give them time to rest and relieve from the sins that are holding down the angles soul.
Economic Consumption
Consumption means to use or to take into ones possession. This idea of economic consumption is a mere fact of what one needs and then expends to a point for the necessary of what one wants, needs or has a necessity for. Economics as the meaning is for one to manage their surroundings which one takes in into their surroundings. Such things as food, clothes, housing, transportation, stress relieving activities, socializing, family rearing, and hobbies are all things that most humans need to survive. This is true whether in the rain forest on in the big cities. Something has to be traded for those things as one can't always afford to have those things and maintain them themselves. As such in the rain forest, they dance and sing and pray to the forest while giving back their ability to cut back on the living things in the forest so that one thing does not grow to be unbalanced to the others. This is human consumption on a basic level as applied to the forest. Where humans are the closest to the natural economics. They take what they need and thus that need allows for the proper growth of their population. As it creates sustainable growth form the forest. This growth can also be applied in a much more strategic and much more reliant economic environment like a big city.
The economic environment in a big city is different from that in the forest. As it is more reliant on the human factor and less reliant on the natural factor. This is because the natural factor has been maximized for the benefit of the most. This is done through the allowance of one to own their own. This ownership allows those that find that part of life i.e. farming or tree growing to be their love and what they do. Then allowing the maximized levels of life for the individual that is allowed to compete for what they love and what they want to do. As such we take the farmer, at one point in time they had to make the decision that they loved it so they do it. As even those who do not love it but keep themselves stuck in it find a hate love relationship that dwells based on what ever socio or mental cognitive process that keeps them there. This of course is not true for the stone steppers. Which move up the ladder and always find a way to strive until they thus sit down by the river and find the peace they seek in their life. However, this maximization of individual management of the natural resources allows for the the other humans to maximize what they love to do the most. Some love to teach, others love music, some love to fight, some love to read and write. However, what it is that has drove them there is their ability to maximize their quality of life for the best that they can do.
As such each individual takes their economics to the market place to trade with the other individuals that have their economics. They all get together and find a way to judge value. This value is thus based on what that person perceives as what they want to consume. This individual maximized ability to consume makes them want to maximize their economics. Then allowing them to bring that to the market place for their consumption. As such we have then created a city. Were folks come together to bring their loves of their economics together to find and consume the things they like. We have the farmer creating a necessity consumption, we teacher thus teaching for socializing purposes so that the market place can be economically efficient to use counting and language to trade with each other for consumption. Then we have economists or managers who make the efficiency of the market even better through strategized and proper creation of values of each individuals economics. The city then grows as the farmer needs tools, the teacher needs books and studies, the economists needs data and watchers etc. This then creates a place for more individuals to find their love of economics as their soul is drawn to it. The idea is that the freest soul creates the most maximization allowing others to do the same. Thus creating the most spread out economic market place. This then allows the welfare of each individual who pays into for the whole to be taken care of so the market place can be nice and efficient for the consumption.
As the efficiency grows we find more and more cities will come together as the human density causes humans to not be able to have a marketplace so close to each other as they need room to live. This then causes cities individuals to trade with other cities individuals, as the specification for some items has a small market place. As such some items are only able to be sustained in certain places. Therefore, cities individuals do business with others cities individuals. Along with those lines we find that when cities work together and pitch in they can create a safer and more efficient market place. Plus, the maximization of resources like food, can become even more maximized as the market places and cities spread out. We find the population grows. So the farmer can produce more resources and the teacher has more students to teach as more and more of the population seek to maximize their consumption of those marketing their economics. We then get streams that allow individuals to move from city to city to find areas of consumption that they like. For example we take one city were the specific markets tend to allow them to consume more for what they wish to consume. The individual will find a way to live there. As such we get then cities that turn into states. As the differences of individuals consumptions become greater and greater. With more and more need for individuals to have space and differences. Still though, those cities have to be efficiency and seek security. So they can band together and pay into the market place for security and efficiency.
Then we have a country or a community as the individuals start to pitch in to create a market place for their consumption on a grander scale. This country then becomes a place of consumption of its own. The country then is able to be seen as an actor or a whole in certain parts. Thus a country who's individuals have all started to pitch in to create a more efficient market needs a place to grow. This growth thus becomes part of the international market place. International marketplaces are were countries individuals create a bigger marketplace. The market places from cities to states to countries create huge amounts of economists that have actually become so micro specific that they have come to known as judges, legislators & President. Then there is a myriad of other positions that microly get broken down into specifics to help the market place stay efficient for the individuals consumptions. These actors all play a party in the guiding of the bigger market place which is the international marketplace.
This international market place is the consumption of a countries individuals as a whole. Which can been seen in bigger countries by areas of concentration of legal and legislative actions by the lead economists in the country. As such a simple shift or law this or that way can shift a countries economics in a huge way. As such, those international countries that participate in international trade on substantial levels have to been seen as part of the international market place for good or bad. Thrust then, we have countries that consume, those that produce and those that are unable to compete in the international market place because their domestic market places are to weak or to insecure to do so. However, those that can gain benefits from the international trade as it allows for more individuals to be able to consume more and to bring more to the market place. As such this then makes it possible for those who participate to be able to create a higher welfare for those that can't find their way or naturally are unable to fin their way in the market place. These countries then consume what they need to help their domestic market places grow and prosper. Some countries like the US currently believe in consume more than they produce. Which I theorize is because of the ability of one countries market place to help to develop another countries domestic development. Which will then allow more security for that country that the US consumes. As that country can then gain reserves and thus spend it on their domestic policy to create a higher welfare and more individual maximization's of consumption through freedom of economics. However, on the other hand you have those countries that use their economics for military purposes of conquering and control. In which ideas of politics or religion place a big part. These countries use their economics that are produce and gathered from the whole and from part in state actors to control or dominate other countries. This is done for two reasons: 1 so that their market place can become bigger and uncompetitive so that they can win win the so called trade wars or currency wars. (which are not wars they are just natural when a country has so much debt and so little to produce something has to be done). This idea of using economics for warfare or dominance then causes higher forms of insecurity. From urban poverty with gang creation all the way to rural creation of terrorism or extremists groups. This is because the natural flow of economics that is allowed through a balanced international economy is no longer and it is centralized in one are with that countries government using for its purposes, without the market being able to have those values flowing through the international vein's. 2. They are to afraid or do not understand how to legislate or legally propagate a freedom of economics that allows their individuals to maximize their consumption.
The economic environment in a big city is different from that in the forest. As it is more reliant on the human factor and less reliant on the natural factor. This is because the natural factor has been maximized for the benefit of the most. This is done through the allowance of one to own their own. This ownership allows those that find that part of life i.e. farming or tree growing to be their love and what they do. Then allowing the maximized levels of life for the individual that is allowed to compete for what they love and what they want to do. As such we take the farmer, at one point in time they had to make the decision that they loved it so they do it. As even those who do not love it but keep themselves stuck in it find a hate love relationship that dwells based on what ever socio or mental cognitive process that keeps them there. This of course is not true for the stone steppers. Which move up the ladder and always find a way to strive until they thus sit down by the river and find the peace they seek in their life. However, this maximization of individual management of the natural resources allows for the the other humans to maximize what they love to do the most. Some love to teach, others love music, some love to fight, some love to read and write. However, what it is that has drove them there is their ability to maximize their quality of life for the best that they can do.
As such each individual takes their economics to the market place to trade with the other individuals that have their economics. They all get together and find a way to judge value. This value is thus based on what that person perceives as what they want to consume. This individual maximized ability to consume makes them want to maximize their economics. Then allowing them to bring that to the market place for their consumption. As such we have then created a city. Were folks come together to bring their loves of their economics together to find and consume the things they like. We have the farmer creating a necessity consumption, we teacher thus teaching for socializing purposes so that the market place can be economically efficient to use counting and language to trade with each other for consumption. Then we have economists or managers who make the efficiency of the market even better through strategized and proper creation of values of each individuals economics. The city then grows as the farmer needs tools, the teacher needs books and studies, the economists needs data and watchers etc. This then creates a place for more individuals to find their love of economics as their soul is drawn to it. The idea is that the freest soul creates the most maximization allowing others to do the same. Thus creating the most spread out economic market place. This then allows the welfare of each individual who pays into for the whole to be taken care of so the market place can be nice and efficient for the consumption.
As the efficiency grows we find more and more cities will come together as the human density causes humans to not be able to have a marketplace so close to each other as they need room to live. This then causes cities individuals to trade with other cities individuals, as the specification for some items has a small market place. As such some items are only able to be sustained in certain places. Therefore, cities individuals do business with others cities individuals. Along with those lines we find that when cities work together and pitch in they can create a safer and more efficient market place. Plus, the maximization of resources like food, can become even more maximized as the market places and cities spread out. We find the population grows. So the farmer can produce more resources and the teacher has more students to teach as more and more of the population seek to maximize their consumption of those marketing their economics. We then get streams that allow individuals to move from city to city to find areas of consumption that they like. For example we take one city were the specific markets tend to allow them to consume more for what they wish to consume. The individual will find a way to live there. As such we get then cities that turn into states. As the differences of individuals consumptions become greater and greater. With more and more need for individuals to have space and differences. Still though, those cities have to be efficiency and seek security. So they can band together and pay into the market place for security and efficiency.
Then we have a country or a community as the individuals start to pitch in to create a market place for their consumption on a grander scale. This country then becomes a place of consumption of its own. The country then is able to be seen as an actor or a whole in certain parts. Thus a country who's individuals have all started to pitch in to create a more efficient market needs a place to grow. This growth thus becomes part of the international market place. International marketplaces are were countries individuals create a bigger marketplace. The market places from cities to states to countries create huge amounts of economists that have actually become so micro specific that they have come to known as judges, legislators & President. Then there is a myriad of other positions that microly get broken down into specifics to help the market place stay efficient for the individuals consumptions. These actors all play a party in the guiding of the bigger market place which is the international marketplace.
This international market place is the consumption of a countries individuals as a whole. Which can been seen in bigger countries by areas of concentration of legal and legislative actions by the lead economists in the country. As such a simple shift or law this or that way can shift a countries economics in a huge way. As such, those international countries that participate in international trade on substantial levels have to been seen as part of the international market place for good or bad. Thrust then, we have countries that consume, those that produce and those that are unable to compete in the international market place because their domestic market places are to weak or to insecure to do so. However, those that can gain benefits from the international trade as it allows for more individuals to be able to consume more and to bring more to the market place. As such this then makes it possible for those who participate to be able to create a higher welfare for those that can't find their way or naturally are unable to fin their way in the market place. These countries then consume what they need to help their domestic market places grow and prosper. Some countries like the US currently believe in consume more than they produce. Which I theorize is because of the ability of one countries market place to help to develop another countries domestic development. Which will then allow more security for that country that the US consumes. As that country can then gain reserves and thus spend it on their domestic policy to create a higher welfare and more individual maximization's of consumption through freedom of economics. However, on the other hand you have those countries that use their economics for military purposes of conquering and control. In which ideas of politics or religion place a big part. These countries use their economics that are produce and gathered from the whole and from part in state actors to control or dominate other countries. This is done for two reasons: 1 so that their market place can become bigger and uncompetitive so that they can win win the so called trade wars or currency wars. (which are not wars they are just natural when a country has so much debt and so little to produce something has to be done). This idea of using economics for warfare or dominance then causes higher forms of insecurity. From urban poverty with gang creation all the way to rural creation of terrorism or extremists groups. This is because the natural flow of economics that is allowed through a balanced international economy is no longer and it is centralized in one are with that countries government using for its purposes, without the market being able to have those values flowing through the international vein's. 2. They are to afraid or do not understand how to legislate or legally propagate a freedom of economics that allows their individuals to maximize their consumption.
Safety through Economics
The humans consumption of their economics and the trading of economics for individuals has become such a huge part of the world. Many wars have raged based on them and the inability of egotistical leaders to work together to better the world. Thus, there has been a movement in the ones they call economists to create a safety through economics. This has been done in many forms from Lock and Smith in their freedom views, to Marx who believe in feudalistic style of economics with certain centralized leaders holding the power while the others all are enslaved to those above, with a much smaller percentage of a change to climb the ladder or to own their own. The individualist believe in the maximization of the individuals consumption so as to spread out the wealth and market place. Through the natural flow of individuals seeking what they love to do, or what their soul is drawn too. This maximizes their consumption by giving them the humaniscity of succeeding for ones consumption. While the communists believe more in the idea that all should be forced to do what the highers tell them to do or decided based on the betterment of the consumption for the city, state or country. Even though the leaders could never know what the individuals soul could become, or desires to consume. Yet, they tell them to do, and the leaders create cognitive process for them to do. Both theories can been seen in each other and separately. The individualist needs the communist which we then call socialism as the all individuals pitch into the marketplace to keep it safe from those who would prey on the weak as the predators find their soul is to use their hatred against others.
Thus we also see the individual in the communist were again they have to go to socialism as compete. This is because communism stops the flow of the market place and the individuals consumption through unnatural control of the few over the whole. Which then creates pockets of wealth and poverty. This classless system then creates a high disregard for each other as the impoverished see the rich/leaders as oppressors and the rich see the poor as those who can't make it/have to be taken care of like babies/or slaves for the leaders ends (let me tell you from a titans point of view ain't no leader nor rich person stronger than me, cause I am an American 300,000 million strong leaders all working together for their own individual consumptions, American Royalty). This spreading of the class less is a clear sing of a communistic style system. This system then creates less security. As the classes spread apart we see more centralization of the wealth. This happens by the government trying to take it from the rich and then give it to the poor. However, this is unnatural and does not work, as the poor still have not found their souls economics as they are given things from the government. The governments giving can become a souls economics. As the government has to take more care of that individual, like a baby. Instead of maximize their own consumption by bringing to the market place its maximized economics. Which usually means that it has to create a value to the market place to be able to consume.
However, we have seen battles and wars rage between both of the extreme theorists in these ideas as to how to create safety, which seems an oxymoron but it is true (my idea is safer, no mine, I will kill you , a gentle persons battle gone completely wrong it has, LOL). We have seen the individualist go to war for freedom and civil rights from in between each other or through the communist religious style of feudalism. We have also seen the communist go to war against the individualist as the capitalist are allowed to much power and are not properly regulated, so as to create a competitive market place instead of a economic devastated market place. Those examples can be seen from country to country. Thus one of the ideas had the idea of taking account of the Acapella story. So that countries would not go to major war with each other.
Thus we also see the individual in the communist were again they have to go to socialism as compete. This is because communism stops the flow of the market place and the individuals consumption through unnatural control of the few over the whole. Which then creates pockets of wealth and poverty. This classless system then creates a high disregard for each other as the impoverished see the rich/leaders as oppressors and the rich see the poor as those who can't make it/have to be taken care of like babies/or slaves for the leaders ends (let me tell you from a titans point of view ain't no leader nor rich person stronger than me, cause I am an American 300,000 million strong leaders all working together for their own individual consumptions, American Royalty). This spreading of the class less is a clear sing of a communistic style system. This system then creates less security. As the classes spread apart we see more centralization of the wealth. This happens by the government trying to take it from the rich and then give it to the poor. However, this is unnatural and does not work, as the poor still have not found their souls economics as they are given things from the government. The governments giving can become a souls economics. As the government has to take more care of that individual, like a baby. Instead of maximize their own consumption by bringing to the market place its maximized economics. Which usually means that it has to create a value to the market place to be able to consume.
However, we have seen battles and wars rage between both of the extreme theorists in these ideas as to how to create safety, which seems an oxymoron but it is true (my idea is safer, no mine, I will kill you , a gentle persons battle gone completely wrong it has, LOL). We have seen the individualist go to war for freedom and civil rights from in between each other or through the communist religious style of feudalism. We have also seen the communist go to war against the individualist as the capitalist are allowed to much power and are not properly regulated, so as to create a competitive market place instead of a economic devastated market place. Those examples can be seen from country to country. Thus one of the ideas had the idea of taking account of the Acapella story. So that countries would not go to major war with each other.
The Sin Eaters Theory
We saw this with the US and Russia. Who both had different ideas of economics to create safety and freedom. One country believed in centralizing the power the other believed in civilized chaos or in other words freedom (order through chaos). One tried to control the chaos and it created bubbles, the other just let it flow and made sure those trying to control the true freedom did not present a natural economically harm to their ability to feel freedom. It was not necessarily that Russia was economically attacked by the US as they really did not. It was more that Russia attacked itself. As the US was not able to do much of anything as the Soviet Union was tighter than diamond rock. Yet, the US just lived and made sure that the Soviet Union was not able to use their cartels, SOE's or anti-trust violations in a way to allow them to spread their idea of freedom, which was known as Communism. Different story now though. Freedom is a whole different ball game with more having to learn to live with everyone knowing and just doing right and striving to compete (chaos).
The US decided to take a different approach with the Chinese communist instead of the watch and let die approach like the old guard did with the Soviet Union. This is mainly for reasons of world security and economic stability. As after the Soviet Union imploded itself, and no Putin we did not have to help it, unlike what mother and Miss tries to do to the US. Then again what attacks us makes us stronger. This still though was very scary for many families in the US as Russia had to sell military equipment to try and pay for the mass spreading out of debts which was done by centralizing and holding reserves from many of it satellites. Either way they imploded themselves by trying to spread out their idea of freedom through economics.
As such I hypothesis the US has decided that to deal with the Chinese communist unfair competitive economics and the centralization of feudalistic style wishes for dominance in the Sin Eaters theory. This could not even be meant to do. However, as the cognitive process of the cold war is still in the minds of the elders of the US and they wish not for their offspring or those they guard to go through the same thing with China they could unconsciously through a myriad of laws and cognitive creations have found the sin eaters speaking in their ears.
Thus we decided to engage the Chinese Communist in the economic game understanding that they had very long way to go to climb out of the dark ages. However, it would be better to deal with them in an engagement than in a stale mate, as death and destruction along with possibility of nuclear holocaust or world war is not appeasing to grandfathers and grandmothers. Therefore, the US has allowed China to play unfairly for sometime eating away at the US's first world cushion and pillow that was created from one of the world's freest market places. This then has allowed the US to take the bite of the economic theory rivalry out of the Communist. Basically this time by allowing them to see first hand how it is done and what a blessing for producing and safety that it individual freedom can be. Thus the Chinese started to maximize their individuals ability to consume by allowing and trusting their citizens with more rights. This then has allowed them to climb up the ladder faster than any other country in the civilized world. This has mainly been because the US has allowed it.
The allowance of the Communist China to rise to the top was so that the world can become a stable place without such hostile economic warfare that the cold war saw. However, that time was better for the US than it was the world that the Soviet's tried to colonize and in the name of communism. The idea is that the US believed that it was cheaper for the US to consume the Chinese cartel made products, anti-trust violating centralized strategies and then the Chinese massive resource conquest. Which I can only hypothesize was done so as to create a new bigger market for more US goods and a competitive international market place.
This competitive marketplace was created on oral and written contracts that the Communist would disband their centralized anti-trust violating economics, SOE cartels and their massive resource acquisition once they reached a point of ability to take care of their domestic economy and welfare so as to allow their individuals to compete fairly in the international market place. Thus leaving behind the Communist feudalistic style of dominating satellite countries with their uncompetitive economic theories of bigger state wins, instead of fair competition no matter how small or big, i.e the US pride and joys Hong Kong and Japan, bright free market places very small, love y'all (so did jac). This then allows the free markets to keep a communist country from collapsing and becoming a world nightmare of weapon's lose and hostility of countries once the communist economics fail to provide a spread out welfare of economics for the betterment of their dominated satellites. Much like what we have done for both China and Germany. Therefore, neither country crashed under the Communist style of economics. This then has allowed both countries to gain massive amounts of reserves to actually build their economy and strengthen it at their points of reconstructive. That means oh milk shake me baby. However, now we have to make sure they do not use our friend ship to dominate or conquer others. We created stable secure monsters, now we need to make sure they do not go and eat their neighbors. Possible like we have been seeing them do with my hypothesis/theory of the Chinese Communist Economic Blitzkrieg.
The US decided to take a different approach with the Chinese communist instead of the watch and let die approach like the old guard did with the Soviet Union. This is mainly for reasons of world security and economic stability. As after the Soviet Union imploded itself, and no Putin we did not have to help it, unlike what mother and Miss tries to do to the US. Then again what attacks us makes us stronger. This still though was very scary for many families in the US as Russia had to sell military equipment to try and pay for the mass spreading out of debts which was done by centralizing and holding reserves from many of it satellites. Either way they imploded themselves by trying to spread out their idea of freedom through economics.
As such I hypothesis the US has decided that to deal with the Chinese communist unfair competitive economics and the centralization of feudalistic style wishes for dominance in the Sin Eaters theory. This could not even be meant to do. However, as the cognitive process of the cold war is still in the minds of the elders of the US and they wish not for their offspring or those they guard to go through the same thing with China they could unconsciously through a myriad of laws and cognitive creations have found the sin eaters speaking in their ears.
Thus we decided to engage the Chinese Communist in the economic game understanding that they had very long way to go to climb out of the dark ages. However, it would be better to deal with them in an engagement than in a stale mate, as death and destruction along with possibility of nuclear holocaust or world war is not appeasing to grandfathers and grandmothers. Therefore, the US has allowed China to play unfairly for sometime eating away at the US's first world cushion and pillow that was created from one of the world's freest market places. This then has allowed the US to take the bite of the economic theory rivalry out of the Communist. Basically this time by allowing them to see first hand how it is done and what a blessing for producing and safety that it individual freedom can be. Thus the Chinese started to maximize their individuals ability to consume by allowing and trusting their citizens with more rights. This then has allowed them to climb up the ladder faster than any other country in the civilized world. This has mainly been because the US has allowed it.
The allowance of the Communist China to rise to the top was so that the world can become a stable place without such hostile economic warfare that the cold war saw. However, that time was better for the US than it was the world that the Soviet's tried to colonize and in the name of communism. The idea is that the US believed that it was cheaper for the US to consume the Chinese cartel made products, anti-trust violating centralized strategies and then the Chinese massive resource conquest. Which I can only hypothesize was done so as to create a new bigger market for more US goods and a competitive international market place.
This competitive marketplace was created on oral and written contracts that the Communist would disband their centralized anti-trust violating economics, SOE cartels and their massive resource acquisition once they reached a point of ability to take care of their domestic economy and welfare so as to allow their individuals to compete fairly in the international market place. Thus leaving behind the Communist feudalistic style of dominating satellite countries with their uncompetitive economic theories of bigger state wins, instead of fair competition no matter how small or big, i.e the US pride and joys Hong Kong and Japan, bright free market places very small, love y'all (so did jac). This then allows the free markets to keep a communist country from collapsing and becoming a world nightmare of weapon's lose and hostility of countries once the communist economics fail to provide a spread out welfare of economics for the betterment of their dominated satellites. Much like what we have done for both China and Germany. Therefore, neither country crashed under the Communist style of economics. This then has allowed both countries to gain massive amounts of reserves to actually build their economy and strengthen it at their points of reconstructive. That means oh milk shake me baby. However, now we have to make sure they do not use our friend ship to dominate or conquer others. We created stable secure monsters, now we need to make sure they do not go and eat their neighbors. Possible like we have been seeing them do with my hypothesis/theory of the Chinese Communist Economic Blitzkrieg.
"The ability to bring security to those that do not have it through economics of consuming other countries sins, or lack thereof of natural law of economics. Which spreads out the welfare the best, while maximizing the individuals consumption."
Rider i's hypothosizeye's
Rider i's hypothosizeye's
No comments:
Post a Comment