The mighty of this world, perhaps, will be disappointed: they are not strong in this world - ideas are strong. And the secrets that made it possible for them to cling to power and firmly hold it in their hands are not invented by them, but are a product of antiquity. Scientists who discovered a Latin manuscript in one of the secret archives in the early 90s of the XX century were confused: it turns out that the ancient Egyptians and Persians created something like a handbook for people who are attracted by power. It was not about power over a handful of their own kind - it meant world domination.
A person in power has the right to use force, read one of the points of the document. Yes, force acts as a limiter of freedom, but only it is capable of uniting society, the authors of antiquity argue. In order to justify your use of force, you need nothing at all: find the enemy and inspire the masses of the people to fight him. The crowd will turn into a weapon of the strong.
You can try to convince people to believe in the idea of freedom, but one must remember, they warn in the document that no one could use it in moderation yet. Nothing is more destructive than uncontrolled self-government. Morality in the form in which people are used to talking about it has nothing to do with strong power. Openness and honesty are a "lure" for millions of the weak, the world should be ruled by cunning and terror, the manuscript teaches. For only under the threat of force in society, over time, respect for the law begins to emerge, the rules of morality begin to operate.
Studying the document, scientists found an answer to the familiar to all "freedom, equality, brotherhood." As if guessing what events will take place in the world in the future, the political strategists of antiquity pay attention to the fact that the often pronounced three words (apparently, they were dreamed of not only in republican France) contradict each other very much. Is this freedom when there is egalitarianism? How can truly free personalities be fraternized? The power of one, his personal authority - and nothing more! This does not mean total terror, the authors of the manuscript explain, a strong government should also use the tools of suggestion - laws and ideology. And then there will be no disagreement. This means that there will be no violence.
A smart and strong government will never take up the expulsion of thoughts from the consciousness of society - it will skillfully intercept them and use them as it pleases.
The weak majority gladly accept what was said for what was done. True, there is one but. Opinions are needed. Many, empty and contradictory. Over time, the weak will become confused about "who, where, and why?" Several free personalities will "enter" the people: their interests are different, which means that a conflict is inevitable. And then the confused masses will believe and submit to the man in power. A ruler whose opinion will be the only true one.
In order to gain and retain power, the document advises not to forget in time to "decompose" the weak and not bring the state to lasting success. And also - to create, if necessary, a new faith. And never neglect the rule: if you want to win the fight, attack first.
Where do leaders come from - people whose will obey millions? How is a person born who has chosen his path in life to power? In a maternity hospital? In battles? In student classrooms? At trainings and seminars? And in general: why THIS is a leader, and THAT is a passive performer? Specialists in this case, more than ever, are unanimous: yes, leadership can be learned. But … a leader still needs to be born.
Promotional video:
Those who have had a chance to feel the taste of power and feel all the "charms" of the "main man" argue that the government does not tolerate apathetic, weak-willed, incapable and energyless. Whom you do not take from the powers that be known to the world, each had a special desire from the majority to do something. Their inner energy gave them the opportunity to think for the future. Well, to turn all this into life is the will and the ability.
Power sucks in. She selects friends, multiplies enemies, often puts an end to her personal life. Power corrupts and makes you lonely. Who does not know these postulates? Everybody knows. Who wants power at the same time? Everybody wants. Be that as it may, it is very difficult to go against nature, and the desire to dominate is human nature.
Someone will compare the need to rule with the need to consume food. But overeating, a person turns into a fat mass, and there it is not far to death, not to mention a bunch of diseases. "Eat" power - is it possible? The individual eats it discreetly, the dishes become more and more refined, and their preparation - more and more sophisticated. "Shchi and porridge" that fed a person at first are forever thrown out of the diet, giving way to delicacies.
But where does it come from, in general, that since there is a certain group, then it must necessarily have a leader - bright and charismatic? And if he still has to be, then why exactly he, and not another? Maybe that one - a modest and inconspicuous performer - could also lead to success? And by the way, he could. And there is a mass of evidence that a previously subordinate member of the group burst into the foreground. It is clear that we are not talking about a sluggish and lack of initiative outsider. But the group often consists not only of the imperious leader and his dumb vassals: there are those who for the most part remain in the shadows. And who said they weren't hidden leaders?
Such a hypothesis has the right to life, and scientists have proved this right on the example of … fish.
Psychologists say that there is no better object than a flock of fish for such a study: they supposedly have a hierarchy, and coordination of subsequent actions, so as not to split, etc. So, the Cambridge laboratory, a huge aquarium, sticklebacks … First - first, it was recorded that among the fish there are indeed individuals who are bolder and those who are more fearful. The daredevils on the way to the feeding trough were not embarrassed by anything, while the timid fish preferred to be led. Having identified two types of participants in the experiment, the scientists tried to break them into pairs according to the principle of "leader-follower".
Under the conditions of the first experiment, the couple was given food without any conditions. As expected, the brave fish swam up to him first, the led one followed. Further, the conditions of the experiment were a little more complicated: the "coward" fish received its delicacy only if it swam out of the shelter first, and the ex-leader was treated simply as a follower. And what, you ask? And the fact that the latter quite easily said goodbye to the role of leader, calmly sailing after his partner. But it turned out to be much easier to “retrain” to be subordinate to sticklebacks than to risk becoming leaders. And just as they did not stimulate the fearful fish to be the first to swim out of their "burrows" for food, not all experimental subjects agreed to "feel the power".
Researchers immediately announced the innateness of leadership qualities, without particularly bothering to answer the remark: why should a coward take responsibility, knowing that a real leader is following him? Here, they say, to make pairs of two timid fish - you look, and a new leader would be born.
As a result, we have that the question of where the desire for power comes from and where leadership originates remains, apparently, open.
If we take people, psychologists admit, then family values and experience gained in childhood play a significant role. Whatever one may say, but on the conditions of the social group in which the personality grew and developed for the first 15-18 years, a lot of things depend. At the same time, experts note: love for power and leadership is born from many qualities. In Minnesota, for example, they found out that the best "anti-crisis" mostly come from poor families: constant deprivation and thoughts of how to do something out of nothing, saved them from excessive caution and related with a love of risk. On the other hand, when everything is good around and the company or enterprise is at the peak of success, the role of managers is more suitable for people from wealthy families who have fully learned the behavior in an environment where prosperity and leisurely reigns. Then, perhaps, the leader is the leader of strife and everything depends on the situation? Who knows…
Maybe, having paid tribute to people who have spent years of their lives studying such concepts as "power", "leadership", still turn to the sages? And those, by the way, without any research and formulas, asserted that the highest power is power over oneself. Perhaps, if a person knew himself, the need to walk along other people's destinies, striving to reign supreme, would disappear by itself?
