Who is the leader of the nation?

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.com/

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Everybody wants to be the rulers of the nations. But that thing causes the problems with private life, and that's why the power is easier to use out of the public eye, and sometimes in the history have been happening that the real users of power have been hiding in somewhere at the palace. Cardinal Richelieu might be the most well-known user of the power, and that very notorious person hide in the back of the king Louis XIII of France and breathed things to the ears of the king. But sometimes people have thoughts that the orders for the actions, what Richelieu made, came from the King,

And sometimes those things came from the head of cardinal, who mentioned that his own political enemies were planned something against the king, and that caused that they executed by the royal order.  Louis XIII  like other kings in that time was not a Democrat, and he was one of the most notorious and powerful people in the history, and maybe his propagandists made the role of Richelieu bigger than it really was because of those persecutions against political enemies of the Louis XIV, the Solar king.

Richelieu mission in the government was to support the King and leader of France, and the benefit of the successor of the Luis XIII was that the internal political crimes like the persecution of Huguenots. the Protestants, who lived in France, was made by Richelieu, what kept the King's reputation pure in the eyes of the citizens. Sometimes the privileges, what Huguenots had got from the Louis X were claimed to give for make hate against those religious minorities.

Sometimes this kind of things are happening also in democratic states, and somebody claims, that some officer or some other official would act against democratically elected persons.  "There is no democracy" is the words, what some people use when they are talking about the political situation, and sometimes I think that those persons may be partially right. In the constitution laws the state guarantee, that every person, who wants can become the candidate in the elections, and this is the best thing in the world.

But there is one thing, what is not handled many times in the public discussions. That thing is, the person, who would be voted must be in the list, and there are good and bad things with that. The good thing is that every candidate is voluntary for that duty, where they would be elected. But the bad thing is that just being on the list is not enough for getting votes. And that's why those candidates need publicity. That is the thing, what costs in the campaigns.

Also, the programs, where the commercial would be broadcast must be, that the targeted audience would watch it, and the commercial must be interesting, or the candidate would leave without votes. Those campaigns are very expensive, and that's why candidate needs financial support from the businessmen. This is the thing, what those "real democracy" persons are judged. We know that nobody gives money for campaigns without terms, and that means that the candidate must promise something to those persons. And here it goes a little bit more interesting.

There are two kinds of permissions, the things, what candidate would give for the great audience, and the permissions, what is given in some back office, and what are not told to normal people. There are men behind those public users of power, and when some person goes to meet them for getting the support for the election campaign would that be a similar situation with the job interview. Those financial supporters must know "the man" because they would give that person the great power.

 Of course in the constitution guarantees that the voters would give the mandate to use power, but if the candidate would not get publicity will that person ever elected to the place, where power is used in the state. When those supporters come, they must have the power for the man, who would become the man with power. They don't give support if they are not sure about their man. And in the real world, the politicians are the frontmen for their lobbyists.

This is the problem with democracy. Those men who give support for politicians are very powerful, but there are many lobbies in the top of the politics. And the thing, what makes things more complicated is, that the candidate must promise something to the ordinary people. There are more cleaners and hamburger workers that the top economists and bank leaders. And this makes difficult to plan those campaigns.

If ordinary people would not get anything, would that person leave out from parliament or congress, but if there would things, like broken promises, would that cause the damage to the trust of all political movement, what single politician would represent. And this makes the politics very complicated thing. And the complicated structure of the political field makes it a very interesting field to investigate things, like conspiracies and another kind of stuff, what makes the World very interesting place to live.

About discussions with political leaders

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.com/

Kimmo Huosionmaa

There are always persons, who are telling about discussions with political leaders, and those discussions are sometimes very interesting. That person who tells interesting things is probably the director of some big company, but in this text, I use the politician as an example, what could happen if there is no evidence about some things, what are mentioned in the articles. And when we are talking about political leadership and the support from the politician, we must first realize, that the conclusion of the support would be made the politician self.


The first thing, what journalist must remember, is that the politician is responsible to his own electors. This is the reason, why they are not trying to please journalists. But when some journalist claims something, must this person realize, that if there is no evidence about the discussion, would that politician claim something else after the meeting. Political memory is very good, but it's selective, and if there is no so-called hard evidence about the meetings, will everything that is told about the discussions be claiming.


And this is why the words, what the politician says must not put to the newspapers. The question about this is that there are two sides in those meetings.  And the opponent is responsible to voters. That means that if the journalist is writing something in the newspaper, the question is "who actually says that"? If there are no films about this kind of things, would the opponent claim, that other persons will be invented all story.


In the history of newspapers is always mentioned, that some business boss or politician is said something stupid. In those cases, the key elements are, is that person told truth to that politician? And the second one is, of course, are those words, what are printed in the newspaper actually said by those politicians, or are they invented by the journalist, who is writing about the article. If there is no evidence about it, would those words be only claiming, and in the worst case, that can bring prosecutions against that writer. The witnesses are not so-called "hard evidence". They can forget what is discussed about the thing, what is written in the newspaper, and also they would not probably hear the words, what are used.

What is the purpose of the meeting between Putin and Trump? (And something about leadership)

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are meeting in Helsinki, sometimes we are thinking, what is the purpose of those meeting? Why those men are meeting in Helsinki and if they would not be made any concrete things, why they would travel to this town, and talk together? The problem of those leaders is simple, they need foreign treats, and many of their supporters are in the military industry. That industry need treats for selling their products to other countries.


The purpose of making investigations and developments in those products is to create even more and more superior technology, what would increase the strike capacity of those products. And the advantages of the technology would be guaranteed the markets for new military equipment. And every leader in the world want of course peace, but if they will send their men to war, those persons must tell to mothers of their nations, that their sons were dying in the field.


Presidents and other highest rank politicians need public support for their campaigns, and in the world is one rule: who would pay your salary is the person, who makes decisions, what sings you are singing. And this is why every leader in the world must look strong. If some leader would give another side opportunity to speak before that side would be destroyed, that thing is mentioned as a weakness. Only thing what confesses people is the use of power. Everybody who would not satisfied must be kicked off from work.


Why must the leader tolerate persons, who have different opinions than the leader have?  This is the normal attitude in some talking about leadership. When other people come to meeting the leader would start to tell, what would be next things, what would be done. And after that, this leader would tell, that the decision of this conference is something.


This is, of course, the very nice way to lead, but why this leader calls the meeting if that person would not want to know anything that is different than own ideas? Why this man or woman would not send orders of the action to workplaces and start to work? If the person has made the decision before, the meeting is only a waste of time.


And time is money because those persons need salaries. So why not send the orders to the subleaders and stop playing democracy. The leader is responsible for the decision, and that gives this person the right to make those decisions alone, but in that case, should the report marked that the decisions are made by the leader alone. This is one very interesting point of view of leadership.

The problem of the dictators is, that their victims don't give votes

World's largest civil building The parliament house
in Bucharest
(Picture I) 

http://metsantarinoita.blogspot.com/p/the-problem-of-dictators-is-that-their.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

The problematic execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu, and how it influences attitudes about the execution of Muammar Qaddafi and other dictators is very interesting. There are many people, who claim that the killing of those persons was illegal because they were the heads of the state, and that would give that kind of person right to flee them countries when the people get enough their methods to lead the country. There were only the leaders of the state, whose rights were concerning the people, and their human rights were so important thing, that the press was shocking about their fate.
The problem of the murderers is, that their victims don't give votes


There is the same kind of attitudes with the case of the Tsar family. Only the family members of the leader of the Russian empire are remembered and we must remember, that there were many more 17 years old girls in Russia than Anastasia Romanova, who was killed in the civil war. And many more 15 years old youngsters who were slaughtered in the concentration camps and shared the fate of Anne Frank. In the case of Ceausescu, there was nobody, who remember the victims of that man, but there were people, who said that Ceaucescu's human rights were violated because of this trial.


The fates of the dictators are sometimes very interesting, like Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, who lived in France as the political refugee after his family has been kicked off the power in Haiti, and this is very interesting part of international politics. Only thing, what concerns the people is the fate of the dictators, who wants the political safe places after they were ordered extortions and killings in their country, and when those persons were in the power, nobody care, what they did to their own victims.


There are people who have very big necessity to support everybody, who have superiority position. Persons who have this need would ever see anything wrong in the actions of the dictators because they are the head of the state. When I saw once on the writing of authorities, there was the form of the worlds, that the ADHD-children have problems with the people, who have the official authority and the people, who think that they are the authority.


The last one was a very interesting form because there were claiming, that those people should follow the orders from people, who just think that they are authorities. This means that everybody, like other child or boy from the neighbor, should give the orders to those persons if they are just thinking, that they have jurisdiction about that, or they just think that they have right to give orders to another people. The problem with the power is, that it would make people evil.


One of the reasons, why Joseph Stalin was able to make the crimes, what he made, was that the world left that man alone. The demonization of socialism caused, that the Soviet Union were isolated, and the leaders of that country dare to make, what they wanted because nobody even cares, what happened in the land of "red twilight". Here we must remember, that in the eyes of international law Joseph Stalin was not made any crimes, because in police actions the international law says, that they are internal affairs of some nation. And the international law is, that if some violations are made in the territory of some country, is that country's business to get those violators in the court of law. The attitude was that Stalin's place was in the Soviet Union, and nobody cares, what happened in there. The same thing kept Ceaucescu in the power of Romania.


That small country was the member of the Warsaw pack, and it was in the shadow of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union were not the only state, what kept political prisoners, but that country had the prime role in the policy of the United States, what kept Soviets as their main enemy. The attitude in Washington was that the Soviet Union was the only nation in the Eastern Block. Other governments of that side claimed, that Moscow forced them to make political arrests, what was not actually true. The Soviet Union was the thing, what was used for making fear in the mind of the people.


But the police forces were under national command. And there was the thing, that in the law books were texts, that every action in the parliament should follow the socialistic order or code. Even today are some historians arguing, that was the DDR, Hungarian and Czechoslovakian governments forced to ask their allies and the Soviet troops to stop the democratization movement, and in Hungary the Government claimed, that the Soviet troops were used force against people, who came to barricades.


And the Soviet Commanders claimed that the force was used by AVO, what means Hungarian secret police-troops, and the Soviets were only supporting the legal government. In the real world, the reason for using force could be, that some members of AVO The Hungarian secret police shot Soviet Troops because of provocation. Or that action could make by somebody, who didn't think about consequences. Or maybe those firearms were used against people because somebody claimed, that the force was used against the Soviet embassy. That kind of disinformation would justify the military actions against the demonstrators.


One of the reasons, why those information-operations are made, is that its mission is to make the shooting easier for young soldiers, who must go home after that kind of actions. So they must have the story, what justifies the use of force in the eyes of their families and other people, who they meet before they would go to the cadet- or secret police's school. And after that were much talking, that was the demonstrators really carry the guns, but those things lost in history.


The people like Ceausescu were kept the power in Eastern Europe until the Soviet Union collapsed, and the Soviet government could not support their allies by military force. But the improving telecommunications allowed people see, what was going on in those countries at 1989-1991, and that gave the breaks for the actions of the Soviet troops. If those demonstrations were not followed by the western media, the results could be different, because if the military and police leaders would be allowed to act without publicity, they would dare to give orders to shoot the demonstrators.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Duvalier


Picture I

http://acountryamonth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/parliament-palace-people-house-bucharest-romania-visit.png

What if the customer would take a part in the developing process?

Picture I

http://kimmontaidearvioita.blogspot.com/p/what-if-customer-would-take-part-in.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

The co-development means that the deliverer or offender of the product would work together in the development process. The way of thinking that way would mean, that there would be no borders for the feedback, and sharing the information of the problems would be easier. The problems with the multi-level planning of the production are that the information of the problems would not enter to the ears of traditional companies. The co-developing is not the leaders or directors, this model happens in the workshops were the persons, who would take the part of the process can talk freely, and that would support the innovation.


Of course, there are limits in that kind of developing process, and one of them is financing. and of course in the company is the leaders. But in the developing process, the major role in the process is the network type working, where everybody has the chance to influent the process. The network-type information system allows free innovation, but of course, there is one thing, what must be noticed in this process.


The introvert persons must also take a part in the talking about the production, and those persons must be heard. Co-developing process is very interesting, and the answer to the question: why the company should choose this kind of method in the production and developing new products is, that in those models the developing team would get every information for their work, and the customer can also bring their own experts in this kind of team.


Co-developing means the real P2P model development for the products. This would revolutionize the borders between the manufacturer, deliver and the customer. And the feedback would be given during the process, that the development team can fix the errors during the process, and that would eliminate errors in the final product.


But the success of that project would need the good knowledge of the product. And of course, the chemistry between the members of the team must work very good. The persons who are working this way must have good social skills, and they must know, that every member of the team is important. No firms would hire persons, who would bring nothing in their projects, because those persons must get their salaries. And that's why they must have listened in the process. The people must realize that there would be no engineer, who would have nothing to do in the company.


Those people are expensive, and that's why there must be something to do, where the engineers are needed. In those projects must first collect every needed information, and then make the analysis of the need for the new product. And in this analysis must be seen, what is the trouble in the product, and could it replace by giving their new cores, if the product is the mobile telephone or some tool, what would need to use with gloves. That new cores or size would make them easier to hand with gloves. But there is no need to invent the wheel again. The old products might have many parts, what would operate in the new size product. And that would make the developing process cheaper and easier than starting to make brand new concepts.

Picture I

http://climbingblog.jp/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/lightbulb-1875247__340.jpg

The problem of the asteroid ark. "When there is nothing to do, and days are boring"

Asteroid ark by David Hardy
(Picture 1)

Kimmo Huosionmaa

I have written about “Universe 25” two times earlier, and I must say that name of this box or dystopia of the rats is very uncommon, and I believe that one of the missions of that test was test how many generations were needed, until those rats became too degenerated for accomplishing their mission. In some theories that data was collecting for some kind of spaceflight, that could be targeted to some other planet or solar system. And it shows that there would be things, what will happen when people will have nothing to do. And in the long term spaceflight would nothing to do in the spacecraft. This will cause the social problems if the population is in the wake when they are traveling in the Universe.


In the mission could be used two very slow spacecraft, what would fly to the target over 400 years or more, and in those spacecraft would generations follow together, and of course this theoretical spaceflight was out of the question. But the philosophy is the way of thinking, and in this kind of writing, I must not prove anything. So in this theoretical spaceflight, would the journey begin with two different spacecraft, where would be two different populations. When the spaceflight turns to the end, those crews would be combined.


This might be made “superrace” for the colonization of the targeted planet. I sometimes thought that this experiment would make by the MAJESTIC-12 group, and here we must say, that the results of those tests and experiments are done for many reasons. So the results of this kind of tests would use in the multiple places and targets. And I think that the world of science is so fascinating, that I must say that we have right to believe in what we want. The test of “Universe 25” was very brutal. It shows how the enemies keep the population strong, and when the enemies were gone, like in this box, the behavior what allows rats to survive in the natural environment lost. But one solution for the boring time could be "the war", where the "Cylons" would attack against the colony. This would keep them in action and sharp condition. Those "Cylons" might be like some "computer game" what creates outer enemies for the colony.


This is one reason, why so-called asteroid-arks are very problematic. If the population in some environment doesn’t face enemies, the result could be devastating, when this ark will land on some planet. Those aliens would never face any kind of attack, and they probably don’t know how to act, if something attacks, those individuals would probably know how to defend themselves. But the asteroid arks would have many more problems. The hierarchy in that colony would become very stressful for the individuals, who are down in the hierarchy. The children of the captain of the ship would be on the top of the hierarchy, and that would make possible to create absolute monarchy in this spaceship.


When somebody grows on the side of the top person of the society, this causes the behavior that will hurt other. This causes hate. And this is the problem of the societies. The individuals who are top of the hierarchy always resist the changes. They would ever be tired by the work, and they want the stable societies and everything is always fine in their opinion. The thing that wants the changes are always workers and the personnel, who are down in the social pyramid. And if the people don’t know another system, they don’t postulate the change. This is the reason for censorship. But when somebody says, that there would be another way to make things, then let one person rule all things in society.

Sources

Picture 1

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bd/9c/7e/bd9c7eb86684479cf77cc3dd7574db8c.jpg

https://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.com/

http://crisisofdemocracticstates.blogspot.fi/p/the-problem-of-asteroid-ark-when-there.html