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.

The problem of the females and children in the field of terrorism

The problem of the females and children in the field of terrorism


Women and children are problematic actors in the field of terrorism because they are collecting sympathies, and many people who are operating in the practical operational level or field operators are feeling bad when they must return those persons back to their homelands. The men are easier for those operators, and this is a problematic thing because the man, who stands with an assault rifle against children doesn't look good in the home.

The human mind built for feeling sympathy for children, and even in the war zone, that kind of actions, where children are dying is justified as the inhumane actions. Also violating women is an absolutely intolerable thing in western culture because our legislation is made for protecting the weaker. The thing is that propaganda and adults are growing children, who are hating western culture.

Or otherwise, the person would grow in the environment, where is learned to hate somebody, who comes from the foreign lands. And of course, we can say, that hate as the "critical attitude". The problem with the modern western world is that we are always facing things, what we cannot handle. The persons in the television or the candidates of the parliament are promising easy solutions. And one of them is the war against terrorism.

The problem in the war is that thing grows people to violence, and that means that the next generation would be more and more radical than the last one. Even if we are acting like robots, the human mind is built for protecting our species. And that means the mentally healthy person automatically feels sympathy for children and women.

The thing in the field operation level is that the persons, who are operating in the area, would face the ethic and moral problems if they are facing the children, even if they are armed. In the field, many things seem a little bit different than in some house of parliament. And the traumas or things, what they have seen and done, what those persons see there are following those men and women the rest of their life.

https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10721647