It happened: Ukraine has been attacked by Russia (Putin).
How true Chaplin's film The Dictator is!
Why is it that those unscrupulous dictators come to power? Finally, of course, the reason is fear, and I doubt that the Duma has already voted in favor of recognizing the eastern part of Ukraine because it has been dangerous to vote against or not to vote. After all, it’s no secret how you vote, and it’s a question of your own safety. It has been seen how tentacles extend into the other side of the world today, the airport murder of a North Korean relative far from home, the kill of some Russians in London (Litvinenko, Yanusevsky..) and so on.
So why is it that those who have no conscience at all come to power? Why do people with a sense of responsibility and empathy vote for these power-hungry individuals to control themselves?
The real superpower is Australia, a model of how everyone is allowed to live their own kind of life. "All flowers can bloom." Different peoples are allowed to speak their own language, make their own bread, bring their own culture to the delight of others. All flowers are given flowers. Indigenous peoples have also been apologized (unlike in the US).
It is somehow horrible how much money is being put into brutal war machines. But if there is no conscience, the values are as hard as the metal from which the machine is built. People, soft values are worthless. If all that money, those funds were put into developing and maintaining a diverse life, the world would work well.
Russia could intervene in the refugee problem, declare a unified world policy instead of conquering small states for its own so-called needs. Couldn’t those needs be trade, with mutual benefits? Isn’t the dictator capable of such a holistic view? The answer is pretty clear: is unable. Because such control needs conscience. Conscience is the ability to take care, empathy. Dictator destroys for its own benefit.
Remains the question: how do such individuals, they get their mandate? Where is the opposing force of the people?
The executive power of the dictator is also fear. The unknown has to be eliminated. We have seen and will continue to be seen. China, North Korea, African countries, etc. Small groups are dangerous, they must be put in their own ghettos. Their own language that the ruler does not understand, their way of life is frightening, they must be destroyed. What such an elimination has in common is the fear of losing power alone.
If the conqueror wanted success, he would allow the conquered to preserve their culture, even to develop it as the wealth of all other peoples. However, fear blinds reason. If the machinery of the dictator’s head were to work psychologically and real victory would result, he would give all flowers bloom. That would be for the best for the country, the conquest could be seen as justified - even! At least tolerated.
Does conscience disappear when There is a tiny hole in democracy? The question arises when it seems that the dictator who came to power has sometimes been softer, more humane. Or has it been only a tactic from the start? After all, Hitler had a clear goal from an early youth. It is only looking for its implementation.
In fact, the best Hitler biography is probably Veikko Huovinen's "Veitikka" (Trickster? I don't know a correct translation)! Worth reading. Although it is somehow a humorous work to its name, Huovinen has done a lot of real research work on it, one that no other biographer has done. Sharp analysis in addition to the facts. With humor. After all, the fate of dictators is always the same: they will be destroyed. Huovinen could turn a tragedy successfully into an amusement. (I've also read Ian Kershaw´'s "Hitler", comprehensive and good, heavy in scope and details, I've also tried several times to get inside the creature's head in "Mein Kampf", hundreds of articles ... phew.)
One can't help but wonder.
