Group Name And Leader (If Applicable: Fill & Download for Free

A famous sociologist named Max Weber holds the answer. He was the first scholar to extensively characterise charisma in leadership. He referred to charisma as existing only in statu nascendi - in a state of formation.This means that charisma can only propel a ‘revolutionary’ hero figure from the fringes into the centre of things, into a position of great power, to great popularity - when his rise to power is in that ‘state of formation’. A political campaign exemplifies such a state of formation, and for a charismatic leader, if they rely in an extreme way on charismatic rhetoric, they may become - in the short term - very successful.A central part of charisma in this phase, is charismatic rhetoric - which necessitates, among other things, rallies. Rallies physiologically raise the testosterone of followers, sometimes for weeks after, with a short term rise in dopamine. This is the same effect that occurs when sports fans watch their team win. It allows the leader to display alpha behaviour, charisma, lies/half-truths/promises that followers want to hear, and the other crucial elements of charismatic rhetoric - whipping up and increasing feelings of hatred toward another race or ethnic minority, or other minority group such as LGBT, disabled, and so on.Weber tells us (and this has played out in history over and over) that once charisma has reached a state of formation, it ebbs away. So in Trump’s case, this would mean it ebbs away at the point when he becomes President and the charisma becomes routinised and bureaucratised.This usually means two things; a huge fall in popularity, almost immediately, which the leader will not gain back, and a concomitant fall back on force and coercion to dig his heels in and keep that power. Democracy suffers as popularity is no longer something he can rely on; you will sometimes see, at this stage, a desperate attempt to keep charisma alive (rallies, and constant bombastic tweets are Trump’s examples), but this does tend to seem bizarre. You will also often see attempts by the charismatic leader to remove democratic powers from his senate, parliament or congress to benefit himself and solidify his hold on power, or find a way to militarise a state so that it is harder for his powers to be taken away. In Trump’s case, look at North Korea’s ballistic missile just launched over Japan, provocative behaviour for which they blame the US - for Trump’s provocative ‘fire and fury’ rhetoric. Trump told his Arizona rally that North Korea respects the US a few days ago, so you can see the danger and disconnect in that one example alone.It also reflects Weber’s observation that charisma is fundamentally unstable; this is partly because the charismatic will combine his need to whip up charisma with dangerous behaviour and traditional ‘fallbacks’ of charismatic rhetoric - military displays of strength, warmongering, hate directed toward a minority group, crazy promises, blame and bullying of others for their own mistakes, more and more promises that he can't keep, more rallies, and so on.Usually at this point, criminality of some kind emerges.So in summary, Trump’s use of charisma and charismatic rhetoric is pretty textbook which explains his reliance on rallies, and also explains why he had Hitler’s writings on his bedstand - because he is emulating the approach that Hitler used, which is the quintessential charisma approach seen in the rise of many despotic leaders. Some people criticise the comparison of Trump and Hitler but it is very un-sensational in the context of charisma theory, where it becomes simply a very direct comparison of the great similarities in the application of charisma by both.History is playing out pretty ‘normally’ in terms of the boundaries of what one might expect from the results of excessive dark charisma at this point, which is depressing.It always ends badly.

Been A2A this a couple of times, and meaning to get to it.It's about time that I do, I guess, taking into account the amount of almost daily interaction I have with fellow Quorans from India, and the apparent mutual curiosity I encounter frequently.Much like ‎Amir E. Aharoni (אמיר א׳ אהרוני)‎ wrote in his superb answer, I can only speak for myself.So here goes:In my humble view, India is probably the most fascinating country in the current geopolitical and socioeconomic snapshot of the world.Where it goes, and how it gets there, will - very likely - have profound implications that would resonate far beyond its own borders for decades.Nothing too dramatic, right?;)This video by the brilliant blogger Srishti Kukreja (whom I was very happy to find as a new user on Quora) makes an important point, that cannot be underestimated:Well worth the 2:18 minutes.Sure.India has massive issues to resolve.On Gender Equality, a high poverty rate and policy issues, education and literacy levels in portions of the population, the ineffective and bureaucratic state structure, internal religious tensions, traditional elements in the way of progress.Yep, there is much to be done.BUT:Are those issues fully resolved in Russia?In European countries?In Israel?... In the United States?No.Yet we don't define, common perception-wise, any of these other countries primarily by these challenges.The most interesting thing in India is not its challenges.It's its POTENTIAL.And yes - indeed - how it will harness its potential to deal with, among other things, its internal challenges.Its growth hasn't trickled down yet.It's a challenging process - but a process never the less.Here is a fact that might blow your mind.Which country has the biggest number of people who answer these 4 categories:young (20s-40s), Proficient English speaking, middle class to upper-class classification, academically educated people?No.It isn't the United States.It's freagin' India.This is NOT an amazing fact to me.The fact that this is NOT common knowledge in the west ASTOUNDS ME!Capital markets, the commerce sector, online venues, media leaders...They all seem to "acknowledge India's importance", sure.But it doesn't seem like it sunk deep enough, that people fully comprehend the meaning of this analysis.This amount of young, English speaking, middle class to upper class, educated people, Namely the most lucrative financial driving group for any type of market that exists,is not only ALREADY in India -It will CONTINUE TO GROW in India!Look at where the academic degree is going, according to OECD:and projected economy size according to Goldman Sachs:So again - as I said in the beginning - what is most interesting is not where India is now (which is VERY interesting by itself),What is interesting is where India is going to be.In 10 years.In 20 years.In 50 years.Here's a great example on how India can surprise you if you're still looking at it in an uninformed, out of date view.Think "Indian Movie".You had a Bollywood moment right now, right? ;)You were imagining a lovely Indian actress in a red & gold Sari,and an Indian actor (with insane hair), in a pink polo shirt with the collar pulled upwards, like an American 80's guy,both dancing, singing and smiling to each other from behind a Cactus.You were NOT imagining this:Yep.She had a different take on Cactus there (Timecode 01:01).Surprised? Well, here's another one for you:People like to refer to my country, Israel, as "The Startup Nation".It's a good name, quite becoming for the past few decades,I must say that in recent lectures I gave to Swedish, American, Spanish and German groups I lectured to recently,I argued Israel is maturing into a "Scale Up nation".You can only be the "smart kid in class" for that long and they must evolve.Perhaps I'll write about that soon.Want to look at a startup nation?Why not look a bit farther east?And M&As?Yep.They arrived too:There's your freagin' startup nation - right there!People keep talking about the migration of the minds from India to the U.S and EU, but mind you, many brilliant and innovative young Indians work for global giants who are beginning to - more and more of them - set up shop in Bangalore, Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi and elsewhere, and later (or regardless) launch their own startup companies.Here, a bit more if you're interested:Tech Start-ups in India: A Bright Future | 10000startupsWith strong academic institutes (Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore (IISc), University of Mumbai) more global presence of major tech companies, more startups, and more VCs and private equity coming in, India is becoming a tech hub that won't be a global outsourcing solution: It will become a tech leader.The government needs to step in hard on that.Indian entrepreneurs need to figure out their fortes.But they will.Israel did it, and we're less than 8 million.India?Slightly larger.Somewhat...Culture and tourism wise - this IS common Israeli knowledge.Israelis love to visit India.India has for decades been one the most popular destinations for young Israelis for a long trip after the military service,and according to a survey I read not too long ago, went from one of the top 20 in the past decade, to a top 10 destination in this decade.Value for money, lots to see, rich history and culture.Beautiful places in India you don't want to miss, but most you probably will.What's not to like?And of course, on this front Israelis haven't discovered anything the rest of the world didn't already know.I have noticed the question details regarded the Military Issue.I already wrote an elaborate answer on the fact that military wise, India is a superpower that no one can ignore, so if interested, here it isNoam Kaiser's answer to How is the Indian Armed Forces regarded by other countries?The Israeli connection to the military and strategy aspects appears in that answer, as well as here:Noam Kaiser's answer to Does Israel consider India as an ally?Our two states share similar challenges of residing in challenging neighborhoods, both states had their wars take place with countries next door.Also, both are democracies trying to mediate an ongoing anti-terror campaign against religiously driven, sometimes state-backed terrorist organization, aiming to harm their civilians,facing almost daily dilemmas concerning how to engage with terror prevention while retaining democratic values.Serious challenges that make a strategic partnership and a knowledge exchange very sensible.The rising political and economic significance of the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China) is nothing new, I'm not delivering breaking news here.But as pointed once or twice before, India is the biggest mystery and the most interesting among the 4.China's growing strength and effect is common knowledge.Russia is in shaky territories.Brazil is both part of a pan-American change that it is a major part of, but it isn't driving alone and is perhaps the one I would rate as 2nd most interesting. I hope to learn more about it.But India?All eyes on India.If you live on this planet, and for the foreseeable future, you do,this country, internal culture and political challenges wise, global politics and diplomacy wise, military aspects wise, tech and economy wise of course, is one that you wish to expand your knowledge on.You should want to find out more and see how it affects you, and how - if applicable - you can find that growing effect mutually beneficialThere.One Israeli's point of view.OH! One last thing:Cricket.I don't get it.I get how big it is, second most popular to football in the world (Real football, not NFL), I know.But I just don't get it.

Firstly what is NSG- Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is a group of nuclear supplier countries that seek to prevent nuclear proliferation by controlling the export of materials, equipment and technology that can be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.[1]The group comprise 48 members and India also want to be a member of it and talks of membership was started almost 8 years ago in 2008 and USA also support India’s intent.On 24 june 2016 A meeting of NSG members was started in Seoul,South korea . In this meeting India’s membership intent was main issue.Almost all members was supporting India but few was in the opposition also and leader of opposition was China.So here I am writing about which countries were support India and which were against it.Firstly opposition-Total 7 countries were against india and names of these are-China, Turkey ,Austria ,NewZealand ,Ireland and Switzerland.Now, I am writting about facts that these countries raised against India.China was attempting to block any discussion about India.Turkey raised criteria based issue.Other 4 (Austria ,NewZealand ,Ireland and Switzerland) countries raised issue of Non proliferation treaty(NPT)All other members (total-41) were supporting India's menbership.For NSG's all members name hit the link - Nuclear Suppliers GroupSource-The hindu newspaper.(link-NSG plenary ends without movement in India's application)Footnotes[1] Nuclear Suppliers Group