Coronavirus - Take two - Action!

[Ninurta]

It is strange to many these days, that such an outlook is seen as uninformed or those who hold an independent
perception -and I mean that in the terms Ninurta's indicating, fail to grasp the importance of having leaders.
The slow-drip of brainwashing has placed many of today's public into a position where they cannot understand
that they -themselves, are actually 'the leaders'.

I have come to believe over the years that there are natural "leaders" and natural "followers". The natural leaders will end up leading in situations, whether they want to or not, and the followers will follow in those same situations, again independent of what they want to be doing. It borders on Nietzche's philosophies. He may have been on to something.

Then, apart from either of those classes, there are politicians. Politicians are just Followers who wish they could lead, and so try to make it so with dismal failure.

Politicians perceive themselves to be "leaders", and have convinced a sizable proportion of Followers to actually speak of politicians in those terms, but simply calling a skunk a rose does not make it so. They have either forgotten, or more likely suppressed, the fact that the best leaders are servants  to those whom they lead, Not Followers, but servants. There is another layer of distinction to be made there, a distinction that is often blurred or ignored. Leaders are there to SERVE the people they lead, to take proper care of them, because without those who follow, there is no need to lead anything at all. Without Followers, there can be no Leaders.

Politicians, for the most part, ignore or suppress that notion, the idea of taking care of their followers. In doing so, they fail in Leadership, and become something more along the lines of petty tyrants. Tyrants are not Leaders. One does not "lead" by commanding blind obedience, he leads by going forth and seeing who follows. If one "leads" only by command, he is not leading, he is simply dragging the unwilling or unknowing along. "Leading" by browbeating is not leading at all, it's just plain old browbeating.

In order the lead, a Leader must inspire Followers to WANT to follow, of their own volition. He makes of them Leaders in their own right, just on another level. He presents them with choices, and allows them their choice. If they still follow, then he is leading, but he is leading a free people. If he must order them to follow and beat them into submission, he is, in reality, no leader at all. They are then not following, they are merely being dragged along against their will.

This is where Donald trump excelled, and BidenHarris has utterly failed. Trump presented decisions, not ultimatums, and choices, not mandates, then he struck off on his own to see if anyone followed. Many did. BidenHarris, on the other hand, has gone to the exactly polar opposite extreme. It's also likely the reason Trump left the Democrat Party and became a Republican. Democrats are like all other folks on the Left of the political spectrum - their philosophy is to beat the people into a submissive herd, rather than lead them into a free thinking herd led by choice.

Politicians were meant to be Servant-Leaders, but over time they have suppressed the service aspect, and now claim to be Leaders when they are nothing of the sort.

For old time sake, I looked up the word 'Independence' on the internet and I was surprised that there are two
entries by Wikipedia. The first and obvious one briefly describes 'self-government' and then moves off into
convincing the reader that basically, Governments in today's sense is taken as the norm.

The second one I liked better. With a sub-heading 'Probability theory', it explained something called 'the Stochastic
process', Where after using big scientific/mathematical words, it indicated that by adhering to such a theory, a person
can come to the conclusion that random acts effect our everyday lives.
(Big-brain stuff?!!)

I think this character in the 1987 movie 'RoboCop' says it better.
(Being interviewed by a local TV News station.)



Keva Rosenberg Unemployed Person:
"It's a free society - except there ain't nothin' free, because there's no guarantees, you know?
You're on your own. It's the law of the jungle. Hoo-hoo."

He's correct.

An interesting notion, but I think that "Freedom" IS "no guarantees". Guarantees severely limit your range of motion to that which is guaranteed. There is no element of random chance from which springs "choice", and so along with guarantees comes limits, and a lack of choices, therefore a lack of "freedom" in both choice and action that flows from choice.

Is "success" REALLY success in the absence of a potential for failure? Is it even possible to excel when there is no other alternative to measure it against?

Are we truly "free" if we allow someone Else to define what is "success" for US?

.