Tag: Election

Philosophy – “Why Leadership does not Require Experience” – 6/10/2020

“If leadership merely required experience, then I’d make all my mules as my generals.”

– Unknown (American Civil War)

Leadership is based on the brave choice, not on experience. For what one is experienced in, one has gained ground and knowledge in. For leadership, for politics, a person climbs to the top by way of the lie. When being dishonest, a politician inevitably gains power. Though, to be the politician who has no experience, they become the person who has merely the words to stand by them, which are, “I can do it.” They raise their hand, step forward, and their face is pock-marked with the signs of bravery.

Courage is the only required ingredient, the only needed qualification for a leadership position. It is not the endless schooling, nor the endless studies, and especially not the endless lying that causes a wannabe leader to advance faster. Leadership merely requires might and strength, along with the will to be honest with the nation’s citizens.

Make leadership to do with knowledge, and there has been created from it the endless complications to a rather simple role. Responsibility is the needed attribute for any leader, where they say to themselves, “I have no choice but to do what is right.” If leadership is not based around courage, then it is not based around responsibility. It is, in fact, based around incompetence and deception.

To add, if the leader is ignorant, then it is the people who support him, by way of continual faith. It becomes the people who make the difference, rather than the endless dependency on politicians.

Dialogue – “A Sympathetic Government” – A Debunk to the Idea of a Caring Nation – A Debunk to Socialism – 6/24/2019

Q: You say that sympathy is the only utilization of any form of government?

A: It is correct.

Q: Why is that?

A: There used to be a time when the common American would empathize, not sympathize, with their nation. Understand, this is purely a psychological argument. This was during the time when only men were allowed to storm on foreign soil, during a heated war. Psychologically speaking, men went to war to “free their lands” and this means to keep the weak free; that is, to keep women free. Empathy was in their hearts, and such battle cries were there for inspiration. What America’s founding fathers fought for, was for the government to fear its people, not for the people to fear their government. When the people benefit the nation, the people love the nation, through empathy. When the government benefits the nation, the government cannot understand the individual, or individualism, so therefore, the common American is neglected of their ability, which relates to their ability to work and prove themselves.

Q: You mean that when a population of people use empathy for their nation, then the people are seeing the nation as a one?

A: That is correct. A population of people who see their nation as a one, will be the same as an individual viewing another individual as a one, and never part of a group. A nation’s government, whose leadership views its people as a one, will again, never see its people for individuals. Individualism is left to die, and the government becomes the one.

Q: And this means that the people will, though unknowingly, empathize with their government?

A: For the same reason that a child will look after his or her own mother, in return for the shelter that the mother had offered, by her home, then such a government is therefore, seen as a parental figure. Purely psychological, again, and for a population of people to see their nation, not its leaders, as offering shelter, will mean for the population to empathize and love their nation. This all forms the difference between submission to a government, and submission to a nation, and its individuals. The government would have no choice but to submit to its army of citizens.

Q: And if the people submit to their nation’s leaders?

A: That would be the same as such a nation of individuals remaining as children. Every American that loves animals more than people, subconsciously believes in the innocence that they, themselves, long for, by way of being ignorant. To know nothing, and let a war rage on, or to allow their home to burn, and not react, is epitome of American apathy. As children, and their leaders as a “parental figure” means for such Americans to never mature and become as intelligent as their leaders.

Q: And to the men who protect their nation, or protect their women?

A: When men no longer protect women, it is a singularity of people, a neutrality of people and their inspiration, to ever want to be raised to the height of the nation’s leaders; and the men who once protected women, now protect themselves. It is psychological, because when men protected women, soldiers protected their nation; and this means that men kept their women free, and soldiers kept their land free. The fertility of a woman and her place as a mother, and a nation with its place as a Motherland, makes freedom necessary for the nation and its people, not for the leaders.

Q: Anything else?

A: The basis behind Socialism and its creation of poverty is a war between development and poverty. This is a war between the Primate Brain and the Reptilian Brain. A war between the primate and the reptile. A war between development and underdevelopment. A war between the mind and the heart. A war between leadership and Liberalism. A war between the rich and the poor, as it has always been, for millennia. Two singularities, with one who are rich and the other who are poor, where the rich grow taller and the poor die off.