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. 

Constitutional state and populism

Constitutional state and populism

Populists say that independent justice system would not serve democracy, because judges are living far away from reality. Normally the argument for that is that judges make solutions, which is not in the line with common opinion. In many arguments, the judge is the government official, whose mission is to serve the state as well as the police organization. And sometimes I have heard opinions that when the prosecution has been raised against foreign people, those people just should kick off from the country because the legal proceedings are just a waste of money. 

That kind of argumentation is sometimes very effective for the "regular people", who have not have to see things, what they don't want to see. And this kind of thing the argument about the laws, what are criminalizing things like homosexuality and another kind of that, whom person self cannot effect. 

But do you know, why we have a court system? Its mission is to deny the police and government officials make crimes. If we would not have neutral trials, where also persecuted people have a chance to defend themselves, the officials would try to put their illegal acts to other people's fault. 

The thing in the populism is that it is a very good tool in the hands of the politicians. We must remember that the destruction of the Warsaw Pact caused the new kind of information technology, which allowed people to communicate with together without state control. 

And new popular politicians revolutionize democracy. But that advantage continues, and the problem in the ex-eastern block nations is that there has ever been a democracy. People are grown for respecting or rather saying obey the government, and they have ever been in the world, where the politician is the same kind of person as they are. 

They are not adjusted to the public decision-making process, and because of the rights like gathering are new, the politicians use that kind of thing for making their position stronger. When we are thinking about people's relationship with governments, we are seeing one very interesting thing, and that is that police is more confessing in the eyes of the people than some judge, who gives the convictions in the closed rooms. 

In the past, some people had an attitude, that when police arrested people, that person was convicted at the same moment. The model was taken from Mickey Mouse cartoon, where police take criminals to prison right away when they are put to the handcuffs. This is the problem with publicity. When the police would arrest people, the interest in the case ends. People thought that the person was convicted right away, and they were ever returned. 

This happened in countries like Finland, where the press was free, at least if we would compare the situation to the Eastern block. And in Eastern block the political arresting caused that people believe, that police ever made mistakes. In fact, in some criminal cases, the officials raised two prosecutions, another was about normal crime, and the second one was a political crime like agitation. And the person left to jail anyway, what made sure that police must ever confess that it makes mistakes. 

Image:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Statua_Iustitiae.jpg/255px-Statua_Iustitiae.jpg

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11018346

Radicalism and its relationship with media

Radicalism and its relationship with media

When we are looking at history, we are facing the chain of the cases, where the protest movements have risen in the power of the government. After that, they have made a decision, to stay in power, because they have been the best and only real choice for the people. The name of the rulers have been changed, but methods are the same. The hardcore police will terminate every attempt to say something in that country, which would not please those rulers.

The radical wing of political movements is a good object for media because the political radicals are so-called colorful people. When we are thinking about politicians, they are normally "quite grey" people, who don't use strong words and then comes politician, who speaks like "real people", that means that those people are like ordinary men and women. This guarantees their popularity in the elections.

Many times those people are promising very good things, but then they would get the power in the government. And then the history repeats itself. When the Bolsheviks rise the power in Russia, they established the proletarian dictatorship, which means that they replaced the emperor with the new emperor, who got the title "Prime secretary of the communist party". In fact, they hired many members of "Okhrana" emperors political police in their lines, and those persons built the secret police organization, what was the most powerful tool, what any government has ever seen before. But if we would meet Bolshevists in some cafeteria in Vienna, in the late 19th. century, those people would be very nice.

Power can change the nature of the person

Many times in history populists were so-called nice guys until they got the power in the state, and then "the state needs them", what means that they kept the power in their hand's rest of they lives. There are many examples of the real popular politicians, who have made that kind of decision, that they are only persons, who will make their nation proud again. And here I must ask, who told that thing to those persons? Why they are the only possible leaders to their people?

Power would corrupt and change the person. This is what we must remember when we are looking at the rulers of the governments. The thing is that populists are people, who normally want only a good salary. And they have a simple solution for everything. That is full-scale censorship, and of course, popularity is guaranteed, when those people are offering beef and beer to the people, who tell, how nice they are. The persons who will get those offers have been the key-journalists, who would tell, how nice those leaders of the states or MC-gangs have been.

When we are thinking about things, what somebody wants to keep silent, we must understand that only in the Eastern block can happen things, that people can buy factory by billing the price of the hamburger. Of course, this is a legal act, because the parliament has given the legitimization for this kind of privatizing. There are nothing problems, and in those countries is not censorship.

The thing is that in those countries those politicians own the media and if some journalists publish something, what have been embarrassing the owners of the company, they would be kicked off. And the media doesn't just publish that information. At last, I must say, that the algorithms, what are collecting data about the people, can use to track the political resistant from the Internet.

How to hack the political system?

How to hack the political system?

The hacking of a political system is basically a very easy action. For the people, who are giving their votes will just send the forms, where is asked their opinions of some things, and then the people must mark the priority of their answers. Those forms can send to Facebook or in other social media and the thing is that people must feel good while answering those questions. The filling of those forms must not be so difficult, because people must fill them, and send the data to the server.

The artificial intelligence can make the profile of the values or things, what most voters keep dear. And then the candidates are making their programs for using that data.  They must offer something to the people, forgetting votes and the best thing is the work. Normally people forget, that the political speeches and programs are combinations, and there might be something, what normal people don't even think about. Concrete promises are making an image of the real cleaner of the political system.

The thing what makes net surveillance very dangerous is that the political leaders or leader candidates would use this data for creating the programs, what pleases the people. There is nothing wrong with that, but the thing is that this kind of system can also put the things inside their program, what would please only the little part of the people. And the problem with ordinary people is that they so often forget the speeches and political programs are integrities.

One of the biggest things is that some people would not see if there is something hidden inside the political program for the next election season. When we are talking about political programs there is one thing clear. There is always a possibility, that the real political program would seem a little bit different than the program, what would be driven in the parliament.

When we are talking about secret political programs, those programs can be written by hand in the paper, and there would be no electronic components in the room. The thing is that some of those contracts include things like voting with another political movement, against own group. Or even creating the over party borders influencing the hidden influence group in the parliament, what operates as the network.

That network would operate only in one certain situation, where the big things are under the handling, and that thing would be a very good thing for using power. But this kind of things is very interesting to think about because it can work on the cover of the acceptable groups like women's network. So the thing is that the good thing is here covering the other things, what might be less tolerated, what they claim they are. And this makes them really dangerous.