Problem with populism.

Donald Trump made the thing that nobody predicted. He refused to accept the result of the presidential elections. And then his supporters marched to congress house. His example inspires many other leaders, and the last case was in Brazil, where supporters of a lost candidate demand a coup d'état. That thing is an example of a very dangerous path that can cost lives. When the candidate who seems more popular in eyes of some people loses, the next thing is violence. 

The reason for that violence is that the presidential candidate promised work or something like that to people. And when that person. Would not elect, people feel that they left without a job. Many people who are following populists believe in strong leadership. And they believe that the president can give jobs to them. Many times a populist candidate can say that a clear majority is behind that person. 

That will boost the message, and because nobody says that are those things even in the presidential jurisdiction, that means there are only things that support that candidate. And then if the election will not happen, that thing is easy to explain as that competitor stole those votes. And people who have no education believe those things.  

But then we must realize that populism is one of the things. That brings votes to people, who just want a large number of votes and a good job. Populism is the term that means leaders promising simple and kinetic things for people. 

In some practical examples term "populism" means that the candidate promises to work for people or simply asks what people want. And if those people are lost, the next step is hate and anger. People feel that they lost their jobs. The idea of populism is that the candidate just wants to please the great majority. In that kind of politics, the benefit of the majority is the thing, that leaders must follow. 

The message of populists is simple. Minorities are born to serve the majority. There is no problem with democracy. But when we think about ethical aspects. Those kinds of things are very embarrassing. In the world of populists, the only interesting person is the elector. 

Populists are many times very charismatic and colorful people. So they are giving good news to the media. And those people "dare to talk straight". So they are making very interesting headings. And that increases people's interest in their politics. 

That means only people who are part of the majority or who have some kind of permission have the right to get an education that gives the right to a higher degree education. And that reserves the higher ranks in offices only to people who please those populists. The thing is that populists are very good to benefit things like social media. They are talking about things that are visible everywhere. 

Street gangs and other things are things that populists mention as an illness of society. Street gangs are symptoms of social inequality. Some reason for those gans is jealousy. The gang members are jealous of other people. And that makes them sometimes violent. Street gangs are things that are symptoms. And they are good tools in the hands of populists. 

But they are promising medicine that is very easy. Increase the number of border guards, and other kinds of things are also offering workplaces. Kicking foreigners out of the country seems a good and simple solution. And the new border guards are offering new jobs in the minds of some supporters who are supporting populists. 

What makes populists so popular?

 What makes populists so popular?

If we are thinking the politics there is always the possibility. That the politician will start to follow some very noisy. But a small marginal group. The small marginal groups are many times boosting their agenda with weapons. And that is the reason why I should put the image of R-4 carbine at the top of this text. Guns are the things that guarantee publicity. And those things also guarantee authority for the people who carry them. But in this case, I will not put the image of the weapon in that place. 

The reason for that is he tells people what they want to hear. Same way as other populists he has an explanation for everything. The reason for that thing is the "political elitists". That imaginational group is denying people to think what they want. And the thing that makes Trump somehow terrible is that he plays the same game with marginal groups. The thing that makes marginal groups frightening is that they are boosting their agenda and opinions with weapons. 

And those weapons are, of course, in the main role of that kind of people demonstrations. The reason why regular people want to "respect" Trump. Is that he uses a very interesting way to act.  The official part of the supporters of Trump is using very controlled language. But the people who are not the "official part" use death threats people who are "on their way". Of course, those threats are published in newspapers. And of course, Trump has nothing to do with anger. That his supporters feel. 

The people who are working in the field are in a great role. If somebody shoots them that thing rises martyrs in the hands of Trumpists. There is, of course, forgotten that some of those "demonstrators" who are angry, because their man did not get in White House because that man got too few votes carried guns. 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

The description of the disinformation is that is misinformation that somebody delivers on purpose. The modern electronic networks guarantee that also disinformation is spreading very fast. There are four things about disinformation. 

1) We should afraid of disinformation

2) And also deliverers of disinformation can claim that real, confirmed information is disinformation. 

3) Everybody can deliver disinformation

4) Making sure that something is disinformation can be harder than people ever imagine. 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Riots are stressful situations. And those situations make weapons more dangerous than they normally are. 

The case of Kyle Rittenhouse is a good example of how weapons are used as a threat. 18 years old boy shoots two demonstrators by using an automatic rifle. And the court released him. Rittenhouse claimed that those victims threat him. The thing is that if Rittenhouse's victims were black. 

That thing could cause racial demonstrations or even riots. Riots are stressful situations. And Kyle Rittenhouse is a young man without any experience and training to face any kind of violence. The gun in the hands of that kind of man in a stressful situation is always dangerous. 

But Rittenhouse shot white men. The situation was a riot that began in the case that police shot a black man who resisted arresting. Both black and white politicians want sometimes benefit from the situations where a white cop shoots a black person. 

Or the thing is that in the modern US politics is seen the dangerous polarization. There is enough for people who want to make politics with those things. The white cop shoots a black man. And that is the reason for the riot. The cops are racists, and then that thing causes the counter riots. In every riot is people who want just steal property. 

There could be professional criminals who provocate riots for causing disorders. Those people are breaking windows and stealing property by using that kind of riot as a mask. 

The stories of purpose provocation in the cases of riots or "Agent provocateurs" might begin from the professional criminals who provocate riots for causing disorder. Then those people will kick windows of the shops in, and steal things that they want. There are also stories that the members of the Ku Klux Klan are taken apart in some national rights demonstrations for provocating riots. But the coordination of that kind of action is not proven. 

That black man was of course, unarmed. That is the truth that is told in the media. Until somebody thought that there was a gun. That thing can explode the situation. 

The fact is that the attitude of policemen might be so-called "overloaded". When the media and superiorities are telling stories about the high crime records, crack houses, and homes full of weapons in those areas. 

That thing causes that the police is seeing those areas as more dangerous than normal people. And then they are "seeing weapons" more often than normal people. 

That thing causes a dangerous situation and if somebody yells "gun" that means law enforcement might feel that the other people are in danger. And then they open fire. There is a possibility that if the arrested person has a gun. And that is drop to somewhere some other person like a drug dealer or drug user will simply pick that gun from the streets.

The thing is that if there are people around with assault weapons "protecting their property" causes stress to cops who don't know why those people are surrounding them. Riots are always a stressful situation and the possibility that there is a gun in the pockets of rioters causes stress to law enforcement. But when rioters are armed with assault weapons. The stress is very high. There is needed only a small reason And the entire situation turns to the massacre. 

They cannot know are those people in the same gang as the person they try to arrest. Or when the attitudes of the cops are fully loaded to face violence when trainers are telling about shootings and media is full of mass shootings that thing can cause the situation that some cop will open fire. The thing that makes cops more willing to use guns is the personal threat. If there is some threat calls to the telephones of the cops can cause that the cop to "see guns" more often than usual. 

The death threats are causing violence. 

Another thing that the people who are playing the "non-official" line of the supporters of Trump are telling about the threats and other things like post packages full of shit to newspapers. The message of those people is simple.  "If you are against us, you will get lots of shit in your life". This means that people who are against Trump should be quiet. 

The thing is that publicity about things like death threats is the thing that is used for pressurizing people to be quiet about things like weaponized right-wing nationalists whose mission in this kind of theater is to bring force for people who believe populists. And the thing that populists are offering is "strong leadership" and "great nation". 

The thing that is making those things very dramatic and also addictive. Is that those people are offering something concrete for their followers. That thing is the assault weapon with great respect. The weapons are carried in the demonstrations against the police. And that thing makes those situations very stressful. 

Image:https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2019/october/grant-cyber-letters-marque-manage-hack-backs

Is NATO so powerful as it claims?

Is NATO so powerful as it claims?

The question is about how united NATO would be in the real situation? Donald Trump has brought one thing in the relationship with NATO to the front of the great publicity, and that is that the USA would not necessarily support its allies. The problem is that NATO is the defense union, and if the military actions would start in Europe, the attack would be claimed to began by the European NATO country.

Nuclear weapons are a very powerful tool in international conflict. The problem is that some people would claim, that NATO is only the shield for the USA, which has a too dominating role in that military union. The thing is that Russia would support the opinions, that NATO is gone, and the USA must go back over the Atlantic ocean, and the fights would be done in the European territory.

And the other thing is that there are many people in Europe, who would notice, that the USA collects the data from the European actors and private citizens. The thing is that Europe is addicted to the military satellites of the USA, and the role of intelligence has been claimed to be very little, in things like tracking the troops of the opponent.

That kind of cooperation along with the electronic surveillance in the cooperation of UKUSA (1) are things, that would be wanted to quit by the Russians and certain political actors. And the reason, why Russia is claimed to support Trump is that this man would be wanted to disband the NSA and other intelligence agencies. And this is why the so-called Panama-leak has been done(2). The idea was to affect the leaders of Europe, that they will stop the UKUSA and disband NATO. For those people, the UKUSA is a synonym for "Echelon" (3) the NSA global surveillance network.

Those people argue that this kind of military unions is connecting European countries to the conflicts, which can be avoided by staying neutral. And if somebody would disagree, that thing means that the "real leaders" must not tolerate any kind of criticism. For those people, criticism is only a negative thing. And people should just follow their leaders.

One of the things, what pleases some people in Russia is the military forces. People claim that liberalism is caused by the back reaction and nations want moral and militarism. The democracy is too soft for those defensors of militaristic and authoritarian governments. But then we must remember that democracy is not the same thing with liberalism. When we are thinking of the cases where democratic governments started to persecute minorities, we find many cases in history.

In many South American states, the democratic government has been started to systematically persecute minorities, and the same things have been made in South Africa and Australia. During the Apartheid the South African government was democratic, but it was democracy only for white people. Black people were persecuted systematically.

And Australia closed Aboriginals to the concentration camps, but otherwise, the government was democratic. Those examples show, how the democratic government can start things, what is not acceptable. Also in many European countries, gypsies and other minorities have been isolated more or less by official permission.

So that kind of thing is embarrassing when we are looking at the history. The thing is that Russia would benefit the Internet very effectively in its information operations makes that kind of actions more effective than ever before.

(1)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

(2)

https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/

(3)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

Why Russian agents attacked Skribal?

Why Russian agents attacked Skribal?

Trump has ordered new sanctions against Russia because of the Novochoke-case, where 5 persons were injured, and two of them were dead. Attackers have been claimed to being high-ranking GRU officials or at least another one has ranked as colonel, if we would believe about Wikipedia in this case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal

The attack against Sergei Skribal is a very complicated thing. The attackers used poison, which connects the case straight to the Russian government. And the men who made that strike were recognized to GRU agents. Those things, unfortunately, show that the person, who is behind that attentate is working in the Russian government. This Skripal attentate has similarities with the Polonium-murder, where the ex-KGB agent has been murdered by using Polonium-210, which is very highly radioactive material.

And there are two possibilities. One of them is that the Russian government is behind those cases or the Russian laboratories would have security leak. If those materials like Novichoke and Polonium would get to wrong hands, the results will be devastating.

This is a very interesting thing, which has damaged the relationship between Russia and the Western World. And the thing is that even if the Russian government confess that it has nothing to do with that crime, the actors, in this case, were identified and easy to connect with the crime.

This is the thing, what wonders me. Why those men used poison named "Novichoke"? And why they didn't even try to hide their tracks? Did Russians or the persons, who were behind that action think, that the nobody even dares to say a thing about this case?

When we are thinking about the weapons that were used, we must ask, why those killers didn't choose assault rifles or some normal poison like Ricin? Those things could not so easily be connected to the Russian authorities? This kind of actions is really bad for the reputation of any government in the world. So who gave orders about this strike? Those people, who made this crime didn't operate by their motion.

If those murders would be done by using the assault rifle, that thing could be explained about the personal revenge against Skripal. In that case, the killer could claim that Skribal has made something to self while that man worked in KGB, and then the thing would not so easy to connect to the Russian government.

Sometimes when I think about the relationship, what KGB had to power, there could be persons even in the highest positions in Russian security and governmental authorities would be found men and women, whose career that service destroyed during Soviet era. Those people might have the opportunity to hide their past when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

So could there some person, who has something hidden in the past, what has something to do with Skripal? This kind of things are very important things and this kind of cases must be solved because if some government kills people, who are against its policy, must the other nations give a signal that this kind of things is not tolerated. And if the hardcore killing chemicals and radioactive material can be stolen from the laboratories, that thing can cause risk for many people.