![1.jpeg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmPLgi4RAEdksbSUQ8Q1cYtuXUDsi9WbS4H62bneJi8tRn/1.jpeg)

## When a group commits crimes against humanity who should we blame? 

## When that groups claims doctrinal justification of a certain ideology can we blame that ideology? 

## How do we separate the psuedo-gangs from the true believers? 
## If someone is a true believer is their interpretation doctrinally sound?  

How can we defend our societies from dangerous ideologies if everytime we try to criticize the very real harm caused by the proponents of these dangerous ideologies we are told that these horrible atrocities weren't attributable to the ideology. On this post I will try to address this slippery trick brought out everytime the real world effects of an ideology show that ideology to be corrupt and bereft of merit. 
I'm big on examining the fruits of an ideology in the real world. What kind of societies are created by followers of different ideologies? When can we absolve an ideology? 

The argument that only a small percentage of followers of certain ideologies commit violence in no way diminishes the danger those ideologies pose. The majority of Germans during the second world war were not evil yet a small percentage of Germans were able to take over the country and lay waste to vast swathes of Europe.  
Every group has its fair share of violent actors the problem comes when the violence is doctrinally supported yet without any reasonable "moral" justification. Or to quote a wise and humble person 

>Every group has assholes but when your group excuses, absolves, ignores and supports it's assholes then your group is an asshole! 
@openparadigm 
 
Examining "morality" when it comes to war with enemies or competition between groups is fraught with difficulty a much easier task is to examine how ideologies treat their own adherents and those they rule over excluding those who are in open rebellion.   
Here is an example of when the ideology blamed for the actions of the Roman Catholic organization, Christianity, can reasonably use the defense of "Not real (insert the ideology of your choice) Christianity" . 
I would say this because despite claiming to be Christian the Roman Catholic organization was a direct inheritor of the Roman State religion keeping the titles (Pontifex Maximus), iconography, political functions and even the punishment for dangerous religious/political heresy(burning alive). To top it off reading of the doctrinal texts of christianity was forbidden. 
On the negative side the Roman society was a slave based society and Roman Catholicism practiced societal enslavement which should be noted was balanced by a positive Paternal responsibility which can be criticized for fostering dependency but none the less did provide support in times of need. Whereas if you wanted to criticize Oliver Cromwell and the actions of the Parliamentarians their Christian ideology Can be judged because of their adherence to doctrinal Christian ideology whereas the with Roman Catholic organization you would be more accurate to judge the ideology of the Roman State. 
Now when it comes to the Soviet Union not representing Marxism I must disagree the Communist manifesto was never banned and however Soviet Russia or any of the other failed Marxist experiments differ from the precise doctrine of Marx it was not for lack of trying. Just because Marx's economic ideas were complete crap and when followed only uplifted the masses to the heady state of starvation. Of course Marx himself didn't think that communism could succeed in a country surrounded by capitalist countries so the only way we could ever find out if it works is by all of us switching to communism. 
However people define themselves or other s define them one sure way to protect yourself from your enemies is to listen to how they define you or your group. Listen to what they say to each other and examine their doctrine. Particularly pay attention to who their doctrine defines as an enemies because no matter how closely the hew to their doctrine if their ideologies define you or your group as an enemy that can always be used as a justification for all kinds of villiany. 
If you argue a point and instead of recieving a counter-argument recieve a label that diminishes you then whoever you are dealing with doesn't have an argument.

### This pretty much turned into a rant, Oh well