The weights are a symbol of suppression, the government claiming to bring equality, is literally using weights to pull down those that could endanger the system. Although the weights as a handicap device are a curious choice, because they bring a side effect that the government obviously did not anticipate. Lifting weights is a recipe for getting stronger, Harrison for example has struggled against the weights so long that he turned out exceptionally strong, hence the government has helped creating a potential nemesis. But also it seems an appeal that people, unlike George Bergeron who simply accepts his fate, need to rise up and not let themselves be weighed down by anything or
Being wise and strong doesn’t make a leader if it was misused, but it develops a dictator who get what he wants on other’s expense. On the other hand, Gilgamesh had left a legacy and is widely known as having wisdom making civilians look up to but cannot follow him as he is one of a kind, which means that he does not really inspire because it is impossible to imitate him or even reach a similar level. He is not worthy of having the title leader as his negatives over weight what was found positive. I believe that a leader should be flawless and a role model, even if he has imperfect habits they must be kept secret so it does not repel
Machiavelli’s advice is there for the people who hold power and exposes the truth in human nature. However, although Machiavelli opens up the honesty of humanity; he teaches that there are a lot of people who are not good, so one must also learn to not be good. The thing that is wrong with this is that evil does not combat with evil. Evil can not conquer evil, good conquers. Therefore, The Prince explores the reality of human nature as self-interested and wicked.
Moving forward on the Protection reason is that he was a weak man with a bold attitude. He knew it Stronger armies than him like the USA or the British would be able to take him down. Tojo didn’t want to be in danger so he made Japanese Civilians his soldiers, with the influence of Adolf. Hideki Tojo thought that Hitler should be trusted as they had the same view on multiple things. For example, they both agreed that people are wrong if they do not believe the same religion, have the same color of skin, or a different sexualality.
Not everyone can be a hero, if this was false the word hero would hold little meaning, a hero is something special, something out of the ordinary. But back to my original question, why isn't everyone a hero? This leads to my topic, which is about what stops people from being heroes, which includes our moral choices, circumstances and ability to sacrifice. Specifically, I want to discuss what makes a hero, but more importantly why most people are unable to become heroes. The first thing which I believe makes a hero and at the same time destroys potential heroes is the simple fact that heroes consistently choose to be good, and through their goodness they inspire others to become better.
They, too like their progressives peers, invested on issues people in general just couldn't care less. Their failure to grasp the wishes of the people and feel it's pulse, cornered them behind the shelter of a perverse ideology, that seldom makes sense. Years of unnecessary self-victimization and vested personal interests made them immune to cherish Liberalism, Progressivism, or Secularism, at its core. This intellectual vacuum jeopardizes the sociopolitical dynamics, we ought to preserve in our state’s affairs. This threatens the very future of the who nation as political science tells us corrosions on the Left, more often than not, transcends the extremists far Right; a result none of us wish upon
Mukesh is an impatient man. He wants solutions to the problems at the earliest. For that purpose, he employs only the best of the best. But one thing is for sure, he doesn’t pretend that he knows the solution to each and every problem. He believes that the difference between leaders and followers is that leaders lead followers and followers follow leaders.
I believe King’s letter had a stronger argument than Swifts because King knew what his ultimate goal was. He was swaying people to his side of supporting equality while I felt like I had to solve a puzzle to find out what Swift was trying to accomplish. I also felt like Swifts audience did not understand his satire. King truly believes what he is fighting for and with that mindset, nothing is unreachable. Swift did not believe in what he was saying, he only wanted to catch the people attention on problems he never clearly states.
Consequently, when rulers are very kind and express a lot of trust, people take advantage of them, but when leaders are very tough and harsh, people want to get rid of them and create wars. By extension, Macbeth was a leader who led himself to his own misery because he was not morally strong and had harsh and cruel qualities. Leaders need to have strong morals, unlike Macbeth that shows himself as very weak of morals in the scene where the witches tell him that only a man that has not been born from a
Ambition & political acumen should go hand in hand because one cannot survive without the other. Someone has ambition but if he doesn’t have political acumen to clear his path to achieve his ambition then his path is not a cake walk, he might have to abandon in the whole thing. A leader with good political acumen can plan his path, can overtake his retaliators, and can outperform all others to achieve his goal. MOBILITY Mobilizing people has always been the hardest challenge for any leader, leader should understand why someone will follow someone else’s path! It can be for money, power, association, culture etc.