We have little evidence that they used the dissociation trick. But I think it is not really required anyway. Most of us don't need it to get by with our daily lives. And it's far too simple to demonize the villains just by saying they used this trick. It is simply part of human nature to have empathy for those that we consider our own, and to be cruel to the rest. Similarly, to be able to silence our cognitive dissonance when we find out that the people around us and the system we live in have dark sides to them.

That... was not the point GP was making, at least not how I see it. And it is doubtful if dictators use / have used different personas, or they simply behaved differently towards close ones (for some time at least).

> Che Guevarra’s wife, Stalin’s wife or Pablo Escobar’s wife

Comparing Che Guevarra and Pablo is totally unfair. Che was a true inspiration, born in a rich family, became a doctor and yet sacrificed his life and fought for what he thought would make the society just. On the other hand Pablo is just a gangster who did not care outside of his family.

Che straight up had people tortured and executed at La Cabaña.

Why would you respect someone for sacrificing and fighting for what they think is just? Osama Bin Laden wasn't too different either. Many Islamic terrorists were engineers before sacrificing their careers and fighting for what they believed in. You're right that they are true inspirations to others, but you seem to imply that's a good thing. Gangsters are obviously also a true inspiration to others (hence glamorization of gangster life) but not really good for society.

I suspect that what you really mean is Guevara fought for what you think is just. But that's a weaker statement.

> I suspect that what you really mean is Guevara fought for what you think is just. But that's a weaker statement.

You might have mistaken me as a supporter of communism. I don't support communism. Osama Bin Laden exploited the religion for his personal gain. His goal is to become the caliph which is roughly equivalent to being the single military leader for entier Islam as said in the quoran. He did not bother about the people or had any ideology of his own.

Che did not exploit religion. He is an atheist, was supporter of women rights, he understood the value of education and setup schools for his young troops even during the guerrilla warfare. He knew he will not be the leader of cuba and Fidel Castro would be the leader of the country and yet he fought for what he thought would make the society just.

Che thought deeply, was highly intelligent and had the balls to sacrifice his life for what he thought would make the society better.

Gangsters are one who have balls to do violent things but do not care about society.

And yet, he became a mass murderer that you apparently idolize.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but you don't have an excuse.

There is a documentary about the people killed who had found to be guilty and they did not find a single evidence where some one is executed wrongly.

Now i will state my reasons why Che is an inspiration. First of all I am not an American or from the Latin country and i do not support Communism. I like Che because of his analytical thinking and hacker like personal traits. I read his book "Guerrilla Warfare"[1] and based on the title i expected the first page must preach about moral values or self righteous, but was very much surprised to find the explanation on the necessary conditions that must exist to start a revolution and goes on to describe how many core members are required, their preferred age and should not be married. He asks to treat the captured enemy nicely and does not make any false pretense of being noble about it. He is direct in pointing out that it is in their self interest. His arguments were logical and rational.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_Warfare_(book)

That's are pretty complicated boundary between good and bad you've defined there. Political ideology is OK but not religious ideology? Being a 2nd in command is OK but not a national leader?

> Political ideology is OK but not religious ideology? Right. Religious ideology is without a doubt is exploitation. Political ideology that does not involve religion is probably coming out of good intentions.

> Being a 2nd in command is OK but not a national leader? The point is he is not after power and did not try to become 2nd in command either. He left the minister position he had given after the war and left to another country to start a revolution where he was killed. So looking all these facts he actions must be coming from the noble intentions.

If Guevara did everything the same but instead of Marxism, he was fighting to exterminate the blacks out of a genuine belief that it was a noble cause which would help people, would you still describe him in the same positive way?

You already said you don't like communism, and I guess you don't like ethnic genocide either. So that wouldn't be a distinguishing factor.

> If Guevara did everything the same but instead of Marxism, he was fighting to exterminate the blacks out of a genuine belief that it was a noble cause which would help people, would you still describe him in the same positive way?

I don't see anything noble about genocide.

But we've established that it's not based on you personally believing the goal is noble. It's the belief of the person fighting for it that matters.

Pablo Escobar, like modern day cartels in Mexico, gave away lots of money to local communities. He built hundreds of houses for the poor. It’s mostly ego, and buying good will, but there’s definitely a component wherein the government has failed these communities and the Narcos step up.