Strong leadership is the thing, what is sometimes supported very strongly.

Strong leadership is the thing, what is sometimes supported very strongly.

The young leaders are taking their positions in the top political positions. And that means that the opinions of young people must be noticed more and more sharply. The ability to get in the top position in the political system has opened young people the new way to effect in political culture. That opportunity is also starting to keep youngsters out of riots and start the new way to influence politics. They are taking part in political meetings, and that gives them the right and legal way to power in the nation. 

The word of the moment is "strong leadership". Everything that people are looking and doing is needed the thing, what is called as "strong leadership". ICT-systems, new workers, leaders of states and another kind of persons always need leadership, and why the leadership is extremely important, is the question, what we might face every time. Strong leadership means strict and clear orders, which are easy to follow. And the thing, what should make those rules clear, is that they are concern everybody in the company. 

Strong leadership is the thing, what is injected to the head of the people when they are in the School of Economics, and the motto in those cases is, that if they would establish companies, the shares should be distributed that way, that one person has the majority of those things. And that thing makes that person a leader of the company. 

The question is, who would invest in that kind of companies or rather saying who will come to the business as the minority owner? This is one way to show criticism in the work. 

Every time, when we are seeing news or stories about business life, we are facing the thing, what is called leadership. And the leaders of the nation should be strong because they are elected by voters, who have given them the power. Also, leaders are good persons to ask things, and if there is one single leader in the company, the offering lunch for that person is cheaper than offering them to all personnel. This is the thing, why everybody wants to support strong leaders. 

We have seen that the people, who are leaders of the nation, are always giving very good promises, and in the precise right moment everything goes straight to the wall. The reason for that kind of things is that there would be some little things, what those people don't tell normal people and the thing in political and other kinds of systems is that nobody takes a position in that system, if the system would not know that person. 

When we are observing things like new and young politicians, who are taking high places in their nations, we must remember that those people have taken part in politics from the very young age, and the thing is that they are getting their experience from that way. And in the modern time even the politician, who is under 40 years might have great records and knowledge in the political field. 

This is the thing, why people must start to listen to the voice of young people. That kind of things might be seen in strong benefit because of the change to take place and influence on politics would keep youngsters out from the street and riots, and take the legal ways to effect things, what would be done in the state. 

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10995212

Writing about dictatorship

Writing about dictatorship

Do you know that the laws, what is protecting the dictatorship are created for protecting the state against the outland enemies? When the Roman Empire was under threat the power was put in one hand for protecting the state. After that, some people have thought that the leader of the state must have dictatorial authority in the state.

One of the defense for that thing is simply, what we would do with the head of the state, who has no power? Why we have presidential elections if that person would not have the right to scatter the parliament? 

The problem those things is, that when the policy in parliament is similar to policy and opinions of the headman of the state, there is no problem with those laws, what is supporting the personal power of the head of the state. But when the head of state is in opposition to the majority of people or members of the parliament, would there always find people, who are supporting the constitution, what gives the head of the state authorities and justifies the disbanding or scatter the parliament.

And there are many people, who want to support that kind of actions, end their argument is many times that the constitution has given those powers for the head of the state. So why the head of the state might not use those authorizations, because the constitution justifies those kinds of actions? The answer to the differences of opinions would be simple. The riot police would deny the parliamentarians enter their workplace, and then the power would be in the hands of the head of the state. The reason for that is the head of the state would perceive being over politics.

This kind of thing is a very dangerous way to think. When the laws, what supported the limitless power of the monarchy were establish the monarchs were civilized and enlightened persons, but sooner or later the power was given to a person, who was a despot. 

In this case, we must say that one thing what could be worse to the state than a dictator is a popular dictator. That means that the popularity in the eyes of the majority would hide the merciless persecution and use of power, and that would drive the nation to chaos.

Sometimes the dictator will get old and after that, the closest men of that person would start to fight, who would get the power in their hand, and that might drive the nation to civil war. The problem with strong leadership is, this kind of places will want to get by using the force.

If the person, who has power self has made crimes against own people, that means that maybe nobody cares, what happens to that dictator. This fate has faced the King of England Henry VIII and Joseph Stalin, who just left without help when they faced their final moments. That tells about the attitude of people to those men. When they couldn't give orders anymore, that thing caused that own men attacked them, because they wanted to get the same power, what those leaders have.

The normal terminology in far-wing radicalism is that they are not radicals

The normal terminology in far-wing radicalism is that they are not radicals

We should stop talking about nationalism and left-wing movements at the different kind of movements. There is no difference between right- or left-wing radicalism, and the result is always devastating. The thing what might give little brakes for Stalin and Tito was that they were members of the ethnical minority of their homeland.

They couldn't get support from the majority same way as Adolph Hitler could. And the thing why the nationalism was not so highly respected in the Soviet Union was that there were so many nationalities. Of course, Russians wanted people of the world think that they are the heir of the Soviet Union, and that's why there is so great nationalistic wave.

There is very long living opinion, that Russians created the Soviet Union and the entire state was created around Russia, who has rights for the heritage of the Soviet Union. And this thing makes possible to say, that Russia is the Soviet Union, what have lost some land areas.

When we are thinking about the far-wing radicalism, the normal version of their speeches is that they are not far-wing members and the things like fascism have been lost after the Second World War. The argument is similar, with the argument that Mafia does not exist anymore.

That thing is an argument, that the fascist and nazis were lost after WWII. There are some versions, that the Fascists and Nazis were some kinds of the right-wing movement, but the reality is that those movements were market themselves as the labor movement, and the nazism has got the name from their agenda of national socialism.

The difference between those movements is that national socialism is highlighting the greatness of the nation, and that thing also is supporting by the militaristic strength. When we are thinking about the power and the Marxism, the idea about the peace between labors is very good marketing speech. 

But the real socialism is looking like a little bit different than ideal socialism. There are many similarities with nazis and communists, and the reason why there were not so great nationalistic movement in the Soviet Union was that there were many nationalities in that country. Maybe Stalin had problems to create a real "team spirit" in his country because he couldn't just ask support from Russians.

He was Georgian himself, and that put him to a difficult position because he couldn't just agitate the people against minorities. That means that Stalin was one member of the very small minority in the Soviet Union. Hitler was a much better position. He could yell against Gypsies and Jews because he was a member of the majority of people. And that gave him the very good weapon against minorities. The argument of that kind of leaders in that the majority is the thing, who is ruling, and other people must follow the majority.

Mirroring own position to other people is the mark of the king

Mirroring own position to other people is the mark of the king

When we are looking at some king of street gangs, we see how those people are driving with expensive cars and wearing expensive clothes. At the same time, the henchmen are wearing cheaper clothes, and other things are worse for the henchmen. And that thing makes easy to notice the rulers of the gangs.

The thing that the street gang bosses are wearing expensive clothes is happening because that person wants to prove to be better than others. The similar effect has been seen in the clothes of medieval kings and Roman emperors.

The golden wagons were rising the ego of those persons, and they believed that they selected by some power, what was above the people, and the same argument was used by medieval kings when they augmented their way to use power against normal people. The ruling was a holy mission of those people, and that justified them to do whatever they wanted to do.

Those people used the most expensive clothes to prove their position to regular people, and maybe they needed to think that they were somehow better or above other Romans. And in modern states, many dictators are driving with expensive cars, and the car, what that person uses is probably the unique piece in that country.  In the North-Korea the leader of the state drives by using expensive Mercedes, and others are using cheaper vehicles. That isolates and also rises the leader of the nation above other people.

Thoughts about strong leadership

Thoughts about strong leadership

Everybody knows, how the dictators would rise in the power of the nation, and the thing what makes people supporting those persons is that they offer strong leadership as the way to make nation proud. And also they have always the same parroting, the foreigners and other nations have a too strong influence in the country. But what makes those persons like some Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong Un to think that they are only possible leaders, and why people would need them?

Why there is nobody else allowed to try to come to the head of the state, or even try to challenge those leaders? If they are so popular as they want people to think or believe, why they don't tolerate any kind of opposition if they are done so good and big actions for their people, that they are celebrated in every home in their country.

The thing that would return the morale and spine for the nation is the strong leader, who would put the state back in order and row. The thing is that this kind of things are real populism, and another way to think is, that the strong leadership and leader would release the ordinary people to work and follow the orders, what is coming from the great leader, who would be the messiah for the people.

And also things like pornography are absolutely not tolerated in the dictatorial society. Those things are bad for the morale and that thing needs a very strong police force, what prime mission is to make spine to the people, who are working for the leader. This kind of things is a very effective way to work, and when the henchmen are supporting the leader, everything would be a very good thing, and everything is fine.

But when we are thinking about the person, whose position is to sit in the leader's chair in the state, we must ask one question, who is the thing, what the leader would serve? This kind of things are really interesting, because of the thing, what makes people tolerate many dictators and make them also hesitate to force them off the control, is that they don't know, who is the real leader of the nation. If they see somebody standing in the front of them, and keeping the speeches, what are full of the nationalism and proud of the nation, they don't know who keeps the real force in the nation.

There might be many men in the castle, who are playing vital roles, but who don't ever show their faces to the people. This kind of things are really interesting things, and the question, what is always interested me is that who actually tells dictators, that they are very nice men for their people? And what makes them think, that they are so important, that any political resistance or the work of opposition must be quelled.

This is the thing, what might sometimes come in the mind of the ordinary people when they see the palaces and security protocols around those people. Do they want to live that way? In fact, those leaders can confess every henchman, what that person would hire, that that individual is the only right leader for the nation. But who confess the dictator, that the only possible leader for their nation is the person, who looks at them from the mirror? Or do they create the idea about the long term leadership in their own head?

Or is that idea given to them some witch doctor, who told them that they are the only and the best leader what the state can ever get? And maybe it feels fine to see own picture in every corner in the capital. It might make those people feel like a rockstar when they are driving with their limousine and bodyguards around the city.