Who is the leader of the nation?

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.com/

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Everybody wants to be the rulers of the nations. But that thing causes the problems with private life, and that's why the power is easier to use out of the public eye, and sometimes in the history have been happening that the real users of power have been hiding in somewhere at the palace. Cardinal Richelieu might be the most well-known user of the power, and that very notorious person hide in the back of the king Louis XIII of France and breathed things to the ears of the king. But sometimes people have thoughts that the orders for the actions, what Richelieu made, came from the King,

And sometimes those things came from the head of cardinal, who mentioned that his own political enemies were planned something against the king, and that caused that they executed by the royal order.  Louis XIII  like other kings in that time was not a Democrat, and he was one of the most notorious and powerful people in the history, and maybe his propagandists made the role of Richelieu bigger than it really was because of those persecutions against political enemies of the Louis XIV, the Solar king.

Richelieu mission in the government was to support the King and leader of France, and the benefit of the successor of the Luis XIII was that the internal political crimes like the persecution of Huguenots. the Protestants, who lived in France, was made by Richelieu, what kept the King's reputation pure in the eyes of the citizens. Sometimes the privileges, what Huguenots had got from the Louis X were claimed to give for make hate against those religious minorities.

Sometimes this kind of things are happening also in democratic states, and somebody claims, that some officer or some other official would act against democratically elected persons.  "There is no democracy" is the words, what some people use when they are talking about the political situation, and sometimes I think that those persons may be partially right. In the constitution laws the state guarantee, that every person, who wants can become the candidate in the elections, and this is the best thing in the world.

But there is one thing, what is not handled many times in the public discussions. That thing is, the person, who would be voted must be in the list, and there are good and bad things with that. The good thing is that every candidate is voluntary for that duty, where they would be elected. But the bad thing is that just being on the list is not enough for getting votes. And that's why those candidates need publicity. That is the thing, what costs in the campaigns.

Also, the programs, where the commercial would be broadcast must be, that the targeted audience would watch it, and the commercial must be interesting, or the candidate would leave without votes. Those campaigns are very expensive, and that's why candidate needs financial support from the businessmen. This is the thing, what those "real democracy" persons are judged. We know that nobody gives money for campaigns without terms, and that means that the candidate must promise something to those persons. And here it goes a little bit more interesting.

There are two kinds of permissions, the things, what candidate would give for the great audience, and the permissions, what is given in some back office, and what are not told to normal people. There are men behind those public users of power, and when some person goes to meet them for getting the support for the election campaign would that be a similar situation with the job interview. Those financial supporters must know "the man" because they would give that person the great power.

 Of course in the constitution guarantees that the voters would give the mandate to use power, but if the candidate would not get publicity will that person ever elected to the place, where power is used in the state. When those supporters come, they must have the power for the man, who would become the man with power. They don't give support if they are not sure about their man. And in the real world, the politicians are the frontmen for their lobbyists.

This is the problem with democracy. Those men who give support for politicians are very powerful, but there are many lobbies in the top of the politics. And the thing, what makes things more complicated is, that the candidate must promise something to the ordinary people. There are more cleaners and hamburger workers that the top economists and bank leaders. And this makes difficult to plan those campaigns.

If ordinary people would not get anything, would that person leave out from parliament or congress, but if there would things, like broken promises, would that cause the damage to the trust of all political movement, what single politician would represent. And this makes the politics very complicated thing. And the complicated structure of the political field makes it a very interesting field to investigate things, like conspiracies and another kind of stuff, what makes the World very interesting place to live.

How to become popular in politics?

The Parliament of Finland
(Picture I)

https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.com/p/how-to-become-popular-in-politics.html

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Many people might think, that this is the re-take of another text, what I wrote yesterday, but the reason, why somebody becomes popular in the political field is the very good question, and that's why I write it here. First, the person, who wants to be popular, must make speeches about the things, what people want to hear. And sometimes that is far away from realistic opportunities, what the state can give to the voters. There are always limits, what the state can pay because the national economy would and property of the state give limits, for what the government can buy, and what kind of taxes it must take from people. If there would be big payments, must the state increase level of taxes to fix the budgets.

Also, friends in the press and media would help the politician to get the opinions known to the large group of people. So politicians must make good influence about themselves for media, that the reporters would say good worlds for their program. And praise the opportunities, what the politician would give to the field of politics. This is the very good idea to become popular in every field, and of course, the good way to see, what makes people interested and like about the politician, is use decibel meter, and meter the time of the applause after speaking.

The feeling at the front of the speaker is the very good meter for the political leader or person who wants to become the political leader, that people want to hear the speeches of that person. And one of the worst mistakes is made in this field because if somebody offers something from some organization, should this person also mention, own position in that system.


Uniformed organizations are of course the very good field when something wants to promise, but there is one little problem with them. There is so little number of police officers and professional military men in the western democracies, that their votes would not raise any person in the position of prime minister. But those kinds of groups are the good field to give permissions because they seem like big and homogeneous groups. But the problem is those people afraid uniforms, and if the politician promises very much for those actors, would that cause that normal people would not give votes to that politician, what seems like some totalitarian.


And this is one reason, why the Second World War veterans got so much positive publicity, and many permissions were given straight to them. They were the big group of people, who have the same background. And if those big groups of people like some political movement or party, that brings votes for politicians. This is the mathematics of democracy. If somebody wants to get the workplace in the parliament, this person must get popularity from the people, that have only one vote to give. And only the vote, what is dropped in the box means in the election. The politicians want to please the major part of the electors, and if they want votes for new political movement, they must promise something different than old-school political leaders. And of course, they must get publicity.


That's why every political movement is very radical when it begins the work. Radicalism brings votes, and then they would get the place in the cabinets. And new political movements can always blame old actors, that all mistakes are made by them. One thing what would bring support from media is mention that some political movement has the biggest group of members in the political field. This might be sound good, but then we must ask one question: how many members are found in the party? And at the same time ask, clear answer to the question, by using numbers. In the field of politics is a good thing to find supporters from the media, because that brings free space for political advertising.


Same time, we might ask how many members are in the average party, what acts in the country, where lives five million people, and in the parliament is ten parties. There are 17 registered parties in Finland, and this makes me ask, how many members really is in those parties. But the being biggest party in the political field is the very notable thing, and it would bring more positive writings in media because big parties can get more sure places from parliaments than small parties. The membership of big party would bring more personal good for the active member, who is the good speaker than membership in the small party.


But same way we must say, that in the big party is found many opinions and the one permission is not enough, because the votes must be collected from the larger field. And that's why there must make investigations of average persons in the voting area, and make some permissions to them, and then some permissions, what are targeted in some precisely selected areas. If there would be many families with children, they might want some services for children, and if there would be the active military reserve, would they be interested in military funding for armed forces. Those examples are very far away from together, and that's why I put them here.


They are the perfect thing for compilation, what kind of permissions must politician give in the career. And that shows, how difficult is to be the politician. Without permission is no votes, and if the permissions go for wrong persons, who don't live in the voting area, would that cause the catastrophe. That means the end of the political career if the person is the first time in the election campaign. And if the result is the flop, would the supporters go to find another politician, whose campaign they want to sponsor.

Sources:

http://vaalit.fi/fi/rekisteroidyt-puolueet

https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/kansanedustajat/eduskuntaryhmat/eduskuntaryhmarekisteri/Sivut/default.aspx


Picture I

https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w728-h425-c728x425/upload/c4/bc/58/shutterstock-150288245.jpg

What is the problem with democracy?

(Picture I)

Kimmo Huosionmaa


The problem with democracy is that the most popular person would be selected to the head of the state. And that's why Hungarian prime minister can work against rest of European Union. The most problematic thing is that if we want to use censorship against those persons, we might make them more popular than without censorship. And the thing, what makes them so popular is, that they have straight principles, how to handle things and make their nation proud. And why people would not be allowed to be proud of their nation and history? Every nation has right to be proud, but that would be very devastating, because of the nationalism have sometimes turned to militarism and totalitarianism. There have been writings that left-wing persons are working against democracy, and this is not very far away from the truth.


When we are thinking about socialistic, or "realistic socialistic" governments, they are always worked against democracy and destroyed the opposition with massive police actions. And this has been raised the hardcore militarism in the visible sign of the politics of Eastern side nations during the communist era. The problem of the relationship with those nationalist politicians, who are grown in communistic states is, that if rest of the EU would kick them off, that would give more water to their wheels because they would claim, that EU and the elite of EU would kick them of this community.


This is what some of those populists want. If the EU would tolerate and accept their behavior, that would cause the situation, that those politicians must divorce from EU by them self. They must make the first movement in this question, and of course, that would be quite embarrassing for the populists. When we are talking about the way of making decisions in EU, there would always be mentioned the word "elite", what is used in the negative or positive way, depending on the writer's relationship with power. If the writer has the positive relationship with the way to make decisions in the EU, would this person use this world as the positive way, and claim that every person, who sits in the parliament of EU, is some kind of specialist.


If the relationship with the EU is not good, the term "elite" would be used about the isolated financial groups, what are ruling the economy in this area. But when we are thinking about the way, where police would be used against the people, who protest against EU, would we face the situation, where we act like some Soviet Union, when the ally doesn't please it. And if we would use force against the persons, who protest, we would become similar than some NKVD chief, who murdered millions of people, because comrade Stalin was thought, that they were against the communistic way to think, that proletarian dictatorship was the only right way to make world socialistic paradise.


And sometimes I would think, that would we be proud if we keep EU existed with using power. This is the very tricky question because many man and woman want to be "big boss in the small country", and of course, Russia what have very much nuclear weapons is very good "police" for some nations domestic politics. And somebody, who are defending democracy have opinions, that the only right opinion about every question. And the people, who are protecting the freedom of speech have sometimes become the worst limiters of freedom of speech and publishing.

Sources:

https://www.mtv.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/artikkeli/kommentti-orban-on-eu-n-mutapainissa-niskan-paalla/6931134#gs.nbco7Ro

Picture I

http://www.turituri.com/wp-content/uploads/budapest-parliamentwith-reflection-in-danube-image-id-176965334-1424439725-KDcO.jpg

luonnonihmeitakaikillamausteilla.wordpress.com/2018/06/03/what-is-the-problem-with-democracy/


https://avoimenkoodinmaailma.blogspot.com/

President Trump and his congratulations for Putin

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When the president of the United States of America will send the congratulations for the president of Russia after the election, and he acts against the advice of national security, we must say that this person acts always against somebody’s opinion. Presidents would never do right things, what pleases everybody, and if Trump would follow that advice, somebody would say, that this man was under control of his advisory. The reaction of the action to not say congratulations for Putin would be that this would make deeper the conflict between those superpowers.


Actions what Trump has made in the case to transfer embassy of the United States to Jerusalem is of course not pleasant for the international community. But if Trump would follow the line of the international community, the voters in the United States would say that this kind of actions is made for collecting popularity from other states. And when we are talking about the position of Jerusalem, that is same what other states do, if Israel says that their capital is Jerusalem.


The position of the president of the United States is not easy. And the international politics is not the easy field to operate. There are no right decisions for make. When we are looking about the nuclear weapons outbreak would be also the good thing for the persons in the United States military. Nuclear weapons are the good excuse for not to use the force against some other states. This is what makes the situation of the United States so difficult. During the Cold War, it collected many allies for supporting its own nuclear arsenal.


Those allies are needed for military bases for B-52 bombers and airborne refueling aircraft for those planes. This meant that those allies wanted military and political support from the United States. And that is the reason, why the Soviet Union have been supported the communist revolutionaries like Viet Cong and North Vietnamese government. And the loss of Vietnam war was meant that the United States most important military base in the Asian operations area. And undemocratic allies are the very big problem for the United States. That statement itself is quite democratic, but the allies are not even playing that thing. The corruption is good meter how working democracy really is.


But when we are looking the things like corruption, we must say that there are two ways to handle that thing. Another is that corruption would be justified, and the authorities also control their members.The covered democracy is the bigger problem in the world than open dictatorship.  In undemocratic states, corruption is that every grumble of authorities work would be put in garbage cans and then this state would play democracy.


Also, the news, where is mentioned, that authorities work is partial, would be censored by the media houses. The laws of those states are very good, but they are not enforced. And the newspapers and media houses are of course free, but they are all owned by the party, what is in control in that state. If somebody else wants to transmit media broadcasts to that state, those frequencies are always reserved. And there is the big list of problems in that kind of broadcasts.


The banks would not open the bank accounts for those media corporations. Electricity is always cut, and there are many more troubles for those reporters. Their car windows would be broken. Or the persons, who criticized the government would be kicked off their workplaces. This is one way to control the information, what is given by some governments in the world.

Secrets of EC-130 "Commando Solo".

EC-130J "Commando Solo"
(Source Internet)

Kimmo Huosionmaa

https://sites.google.com/view/secretsofec130commandosolo/etusivu

Somebody says that U.S or Russian military have the ultra voice-based systems what are meant for brainwashing or creating absolute hate in those people, who are in the effective range of that equipment. The rumors say that that equipment was uncovered when the Soviet Union collapsed. Those systems are equipped with special purpose airplanes like EC-130 “Commando Solo".


 When people are talking about EC-130 “Commando Solo" airplanes they don’t usually understand that “Commando Solo" is an equipment what can install any radio-.or TV-station all around the world. This system has the capacity to send subliminal messages to the enemy command or civil information network or use it equipment as a normal ECM-system, and the airplane has also ultra powerful LRAD-equipment. Other those parts of that weapon systems are specially modified TV- and other network equipment like extremely powerful WLAN-systems and special radio maser-system what can target the radio signal to one specific target like moving car, what will have own radio network by this plane, and also operators of that system might use remote computing to operate those systems.


The capacity of “Commando Solo” is to take enemy communication system under control and deliver false information of the situation to the enemy troops. But those subliminal sound system might have devastating and horrifying use as psychological operations against some countries. Also, this heavily modified airplane might able to give assistance for the law enforcement in the hostage situation. But if “Commando Solo" will use against some fighter pilots, they might think forced to jump over from the other side or order them to shoot missiles against the own targets.


If somebody misuse this kind of equipment this might cause even the mass murders if those system operators want. The reason why I’m writing this is, that large-scale psychological operations might cause the same scale of destruction than weapons of mass destruction. That’s why we must realize that this kind of weapon is more dangerous than any gun in the world. The forefather of that weapon was used in the Vietnam war. The there operator said to loudspeaker what used infrasound frequency “stand up". And when enemy military jumped up the sniper shot him immediately.


That was the reason, why the United States military was very interested in this kind of equipment. The use of this kind of weapons is the very scary thing. If somebody thinks that some infra voice systems are harmless, I must say that those systems might put us to see our worst nightmare. Those signal systems might install in the systems that are created for electronic warfare. That means that changing the programs of the ECM (Electronic Counter Measure) systems, what makes every airplane or radar in the world as the psychological warfare system.



That system can use to incite the people to do the things, what they ever can imagine. Those subliminal systems are very dangerous in the wrong hands. Some people are said that those systems are tested in some supermarkets. And they might be used to influence the people’s opinion for many things and make them buy anything that that system owner wants. So that is one reason, why subliminal loudspeakers must talk seriously.

What is the reason for crises of European Union?

Eiffel tower

Kimmo Huosionmaa

The European Union is in crises, and the reason for this is populist movement what has been grown in the political field. The reason for the success of those movements has caused because of the freshness of those movements. They all have been quite new parties, and those movements have given new choice for people when they must elect their candidate to the parliament. And why those new movements have got this success. Why old fashion political leaders talked to religious people. Those people were easy to account, and they were homogenize group. That's why the promises were easy to focus to those people who visited in the church.


Religion is not so big thing to younger people, and that's why young voters are separated from old fashion politics. New political movements offer a new choice for the people, and those movements promise some concrete things to the people of nations. Offer what they give is security. Those movements promise that if the European Union builds a wall between it and another world, the people of the union will be safe from terrorists. They forget that if EU builds a wall around it, the cause of that action will be same, what happened to the Roman Empire when it built the wall of Hadrian. Enemies of Rome just escaped another side of the wall, and they could continue their actions against Rome, and that caused as it part of the collapse of the empire.


Why those populistic movements are so popular? They can speak to people, and tell them, what they want to hear. When Greece went to the crisis, the politicians told people, that if there is not the Union, they won't have to pay that money to Greece, and of course, the question was always a big money. Those politicians said, that if that Union will be broke, the people would get something new, like growing social security and more jobs in frontier guards. But when we are talking about medias relationship to politics, we must realize that those new movements are of course something strange in the political field.


New political parties are always defamed by media because actors of the media have already contacts with old political parties. And new actors are a good target for trolling. But why new political movements have risen so fast, even they have not had so-called "official" medias support. The reason is that they use Internet-marketing to collect votes, and basic social media and homepages are very effective tool for marketing platform. That environment can give very much volume to low price marketing. The argument against the new party is sometimes, that they have the only couple of percent supporters, and if someone will give his or her vote to that movement, will the vote get lost.


And new parties have very low marketing budgets if they compile with old political parties. But Internet marketing gives those new parties new channel to their thoughts to mind of the people. And this is the new way to make politics. Today politics must be very careful, what they write on Facebook and other social media. And the social media causes a situation, where the political actor must always be in interplay with people. And that will be a new challenge to democracy. It's not enough that politic leader meets people in some market square. In the Internet politician have a change to meet masses of the people.


This is a question of political culture. Politician must meet masses to get votes in the election day, and the only need is to put people mind that they give that particular number in the ballot. But social media is a very dangerous place for political actors, because there politicians must be very scarp. If they will give answers in drunk that might destroy their career in political field immediately. And if they have something to hide, those things might rise up in Facebook and other social media.

Source of the picture: http://whentogo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/best_time_to_go_to_the_eiffel_tower.jpg

Why political atmosphere in Russia is changing?

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Vladimir Putin will continue as the president of Russia if he wants. But that state will change, because that will be the end of something that have stamped all Putin's presidential work. Putin has lost contact with young people, and if he plays a role as an elder and wiser man than another person, he will go far away from young people. People are getting older and they don't want to get back past. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1992 and after that was time of political and economic disaster when societies were unstable.

That caused the rise of Putin, and after drunk Boris Jeltsin, he was better than people could even thin for a ruler of that country. Bad social situation and chaotic nation society will help that kind of man to rise a leader for the country. Those are things what makes people want to get strong leaders, and that is, of course, bad for democracy. But when the situation of state will become calm people begin to want more ways to make the influence of highest level of political control. Putin's idea of his work was that he will put down open corruption and open criminal activities.


But there was silent corruption inside government. Russian laws are very authoritative and that's why the democratic surveillance of government is almost impossible. If newspaper men will write against Kremlin will they will get troubles. But as we see the glove of secret police will slip from society. Russia goes to democracy sooner or later, but we must understand that state ever been real democracy, and that's why bringing democracy to that country will take longer than other East European states.


The reason of changing a political atmosphere in Russia is that people's attitudes are changing. People who saw the Soviet Union are now about 40's and that means at younger people have found new interests than military service. In Putin's time, Russia has been at two wars which didn't go so good as Putin probably hopes. And before those actions against Georgia and Ukraine was Groznyi, what destroyed totally when Russian army attacked against that rebellious city.


Russian own artillery made more damages than any terrorist organization ever could make. And the same style begins in Syria. That's why some people think that Russian military is leaning only for nuclear weapons.  Truth is that wars what Putin began went very bad because his military couldn't neutralize any targets without causing massive damages to infrastructure. Putin rose very masculine militarism as a stamp of Russia, but I think that those special forces kickboxing and other aggressive training methods make those troops very unwanted service places for many young people.


They just want to go to the army and came back as normal servicemen around the world. And younger people don't even know what was the Soviet Union. Putin was born in 1952, and he is now 65. So he will be an old man. His career as the president of Russia will over sooner or later, and if some 18 years old young people look, Putin, he will look like the grandpa. And for them will sooner or later time to elect the younger man as the leader of Russia.

Independence of Catalonia is postponed

Kimmo Huosionmaa

When some local parliament will offer people to vote about independence of some area, they normally don't tell that if other independent states won't confess that independence, the new state is not juridically even exist. Nobody changes currency of that area and makes diplomatic relationship with it. So when some area wants to be independent it should ask support from other independent states before leaders of this new nation will call people to vote about independence.


This is a problem about this kind of actions. New nations called Catalonia are not very big. That's why their economical situation would be unstable before they invent new way to earn money. Major problem of those politics who wants independence is that they have populistic programs.


They promise people money when they vote for future of some areas. They use very simple arguments why everybody must vote independence of that area, and one is above all. That area must pay other areas social security because it is wealthier than other areas of that state. And when that area will become independent, the taxes are going down and life of people of this new state will become cheaper. Normally those great leaders of new nation doesn't explain that there is needed more than their own will to become independent state. Patriotism is of course good thing for people.


 But when new state become independent it must build new government for it own citizens. It must make diplomatic relationship to other nations and make new economy, and make millions of other decisions. As many nation have seen, independence is not any fiesta. When fireworks ends and people goes home after independence party, there is lots of work to do, before new state will become normal nation.

Before nation new leaders are called to give speech to United Nations they must have support from other nations. And what is major thing about independence, is if new state will face threat or nightmares like collapsing economy, it must now handle that kind of situation alone. It can't get help from it past mother country. It must take lends or some other way to survive in that situation. If independence does't get support from other nation will it stay dream.

Dictatorial democracy is greatest threat for true democracy

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Modern political investigator investigates populism and governments relationship with political system and democracy. As you might know that radical populism is often conducting with religious meanings because religion is so deep in the mind of middle east people. Sometimes they ever read anything more than religious books, and that offers good room for Islamist propaganda. Religion is a very strong weapon in hands of fanatics when their audience doesn’t know any more than one way to life, and that way is radical Islamic way to life.

This ultra populism basis itself in radicalism and simple way of life. When a government takes part of politics we will go to wrong way because the government should be neutral on political questions and free from politics, but this is an impossible way to control the state. Members of the government are human been and that's why they are under influence by public media and political authorities, which normally work together with public media. Populism is a way to dictatorial democracy, where people have right to give votes, but elections should make from the list where is so many candidates of the parliament as there are seats.

Mass media is a powerful thing in hands of political system, because that is the way to influence normal people, and way of journal media is very effective way to influence opinions of the whole nation. Because men of government are human, someone can make a situation where government officials make their decisions in the feeling of anger, and those decisions are always bad. So when people will order something they should think all part of that what they will do. If people don’t think what they say or what they do will consequences be very bad for everybody? Media is a good weapon in hands of undemocratic powers of the nation.

Normally those undemocratic powers will give good explains for they way to rule, but if we look their agenda sharper, we will see what means democracy. Those attackers who work against democracy have good reason to remove democracy, that is safety. Those undemocratic powers like to give people simple opportunities to shut down surveillance system what have built for protecting democracy, and that is the privacy of people. Those people offer law enforcement and other people choice where surveillance systems will replace hardcore police force, and some of their propaganda is for leaders of a country.

They will release news what are a very negative vision of national leaders, and after that, they will say that strong leaders should not have to tolerate that news. And they offer censorship for the solution of those media-articles. And if surveillance stops they must not afraid of any negative news. They offer to change that we could become a new person when we end our workday and turn to off-duty mode. But we are still same persons when we are off duty than in work, so that’s why we can’t hire our dirty secrets even if we want to do that.

Public media is a strong weapon in hands of populists. They offer people always something new, but they are an interesting only public image of government. They don’t even care what happens in officials back office. The only way to work in the state is to hire more cops and give their assault weapon in hand. They say this will save taxpayers money when office workers will replace with militarized military style police, what is armed with assault rifles.If a person wants to support totalitarian governments he or she must only butter up leaders. They always argument non democratic way saying that without leaders goes state to anarchy.

Undemocratic forces always like philosopher named Plato, whose model to rule the state makes people impossible to rise in stairs of society, and if somebody realizes what this means understands why those totalitarian thinkers like Plato. If people's positions in society will be stable all of his or her life, will judges or other kinds of people to hear always only what they want to hear? And that guarantees that they see only good things about people who have power in the state. They say that if people's life will be predestined after they born will military leaders get best military training from their own father, and nobody will ever contend with them.

When people want strong leaders they will believe that this man or woman will fix all their problems, and give them new jobs as uniformed men who are above normal citizen. When they want censorship are arguments very cool. They say that if censorship will be a standard, there would not be hoax information, what pollutes people's mind.

Censorship is necessary because people must be protected from hoax information, and their model to work is that government should remove all information what is not right in their opinion will remove. And that is one mark of totalitarian government. If government hides something it marks all information of that thing mark as “top secret”, and that shows people that there is something wrong in that state. Secrecy always makes things more interesting than people think. And if secrecy is massive, will somebody begin to make bad questions about this thing. Why it hurts government? That’s the question of secrecy: why they deny any information about those files, what could be half a century old?