The normal terminology in far-wing radicalism is that they are not radicals

The normal terminology in far-wing radicalism is that they are not radicals

We should stop talking about nationalism and left-wing movements at the different kind of movements. There is no difference between right- or left-wing radicalism, and the result is always devastating. The thing what might give little brakes for Stalin and Tito was that they were members of the ethnical minority of their homeland.

They couldn't get support from the majority same way as Adolph Hitler could. And the thing why the nationalism was not so highly respected in the Soviet Union was that there were so many nationalities. Of course, Russians wanted people of the world think that they are the heir of the Soviet Union, and that's why there is so great nationalistic wave.

There is very long living opinion, that Russians created the Soviet Union and the entire state was created around Russia, who has rights for the heritage of the Soviet Union. And this thing makes possible to say, that Russia is the Soviet Union, what have lost some land areas.

When we are thinking about the far-wing radicalism, the normal version of their speeches is that they are not far-wing members and the things like fascism have been lost after the Second World War. The argument is similar, with the argument that Mafia does not exist anymore.

That thing is an argument, that the fascist and nazis were lost after WWII. There are some versions, that the Fascists and Nazis were some kinds of the right-wing movement, but the reality is that those movements were market themselves as the labor movement, and the nazism has got the name from their agenda of national socialism.

The difference between those movements is that national socialism is highlighting the greatness of the nation, and that thing also is supporting by the militaristic strength. When we are thinking about the power and the Marxism, the idea about the peace between labors is very good marketing speech. 

But the real socialism is looking like a little bit different than ideal socialism. There are many similarities with nazis and communists, and the reason why there were not so great nationalistic movement in the Soviet Union was that there were many nationalities in that country. Maybe Stalin had problems to create a real "team spirit" in his country because he couldn't just ask support from Russians.

He was Georgian himself, and that put him to a difficult position because he couldn't just agitate the people against minorities. That means that Stalin was one member of the very small minority in the Soviet Union. Hitler was a much better position. He could yell against Gypsies and Jews because he was a member of the majority of people. And that gave him the very good weapon against minorities. The argument of that kind of leaders in that the majority is the thing, who is ruling, and other people must follow the majority.

It is easy to walk in the middle of the road

It is easy to walk in the middle of the road

Walking in the middle of the road is a very nice thing. The people must not say a single word of politics and other things. And that guarantees that those people are popular. One of the best notes of the radical movement is that it claims to be out or above the politics, and the thing, what that movement drives is something more subliming than the normal life. That thing is a really interesting way to think because the leaders of those movements seem to be nice guys before they enter the power, and then they took control of the state.

The opposition and criticism are always suppressed, and that thing is always argument by things like people should stand on the same side for protecting the policy, what is lead by wise men. And sometimes I am wondering, who told those people, that they are the best leaders for their nation? When we are thinking about the dictatorship, the manifest of those people is that they are so popular, that people want that they should stay in power.

When we are trying to make the psychoanalysis of the dictator, we are facing the thing, that those people really seem popular, and that is normally enough. After their death, the crimes of those men and women were convicted. But the people who were guilty could not be punished, because dead people don't feel any punishments.

But when we are thinking about the most horrified dictators and despots in history, we are always facing the claiming that dictators are always given orders to people for making persecutions. The thing is that they were guilty of mass-murders, but something has been forgotten. The people who follow the orders were also guilty. That means that Stalin and Hitler were not guilty alone, the persons who support them were also responsible for their actions.

Criminal organizations are also acting as official states. And the rulers of the criminal organizations are like kings, what is ruling their secret kingdom.

We should stop thinking cases like Stalin and Hitler as some kind of super persons. And start to think them as the ordinary people, who had huge resources to make their willing true. But what if we would think, that some normal criminal like Al Capone would give that kind of orders? Should the henchmen follow those orders? And should people tell everything to Capone?

Here I normally face the thing, that people are claiming that the dictators have police force and special operation brigades for accomplishing their rules. But how the bullet, what comes from the gun of executor differs from the bullets what comes from the weapons of Gangsters? When we are thinking about the role of the mafia-boss in the underworld, those people are actual kings, what is ruling their secret empires.

Those kingdoms of the criminal organization would fight about their living spaces as well as the regular states. And that makes those organizations interesting to research. The criminal boss has own area, what that person protects and defends, and this makes the actions of those people look like actions of some official state, and also Mafia would go to war against other mafia families.

Support and popularity made those things possible, what happened in the era of dictators. And we could transfer this philosophical thought to the criminal organizations. Is Al Capone guilty? That is the question in the court of law. That man is guilty, but the thing is that also his henchmen are guilty too.

They made their actions because Capone ordered but the thing is that those men had to know, that the orders, what Capone gave were not legal. And that means that those henchmen were guilty as well as Capone. And if we are starting to think the position of "Big Al", that means that Capone was not guilty alone. The henchmen who raised him to the power of Chicago underworld made the actions what that man made possible.