Most evil person in history?

[hiks89]

i miss tribal living...well i was never around but ya know it worked for thousands of years

 

[Adrian Neyland]

Me of course

 

[thatguy1]

"Few people on this planet knows what it is to be truly despised. Can you blame them? I earn a living fronting an organization that kills 1200 people a day. Twelve hundred people. We're talking two jumbo jet plane loads of men, women and children. I mean, there's Attila, Genghis... and me, Nick Naylor. The face of cigarettes, the Colonel Sanders of nicotine."

 

[hiks89]

Karl Marx. That broke self hating Jew has been responsible for the starvation, murder, and forced imprisonment of over 100 million people over the course of the last century.

It wasn't the fault of Marx, that his ideas had been distorted and abused by power-hungry assholes. If you must blame someone blame Stalin, it was he who first began to "modify" the ideals of communism in the Soviet Union causing the horrible wreck that it was. Just because the Soviet Union claimed to be Marxist does not mean that it was, if Mr. Marx had been alive to see what had become of his philosophy he would have been horrified.

Other a$$holes that distorted a relatively benign piece of psychobable include: Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Ceaucescu, Deng Xiaoping, Brezhnev, Castro, Kim Jung Il, and Chavez, who is more of douchebag because he's late to a party that ended before he got there. The problem with a most evil list is that there's too many good answers: serial killers, sex offenders, zealots, religion founders, swindlers, purposeless gadflies, dictators, enslavers of fellow humans...

religion again...walt Disney...all of al queda...all of the Taliban...british colonists in africa and australia ect...

 

[hiks89]

"Few people on this planet knows what it is to be truly despised. Can you blame them? I earn a living fronting an organization that kills 1200 people a day. Twelve hundred people. We're talking two jumbo jet plane loads of men, women and children. I mean, there's Attila, Genghis... and me, Nick Naylor. The face of cigarettes, the Colonel Sanders of nicotine."

what about alcohol companies? they dont just kill you they kill anyone you are around...

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Thomas Midgely Junior.


This thread has to be on it's 5th run through by now.

I think Rupert Murdoch is catching up fast though.

 

[loc978]

In terms of damage to the species, I vote for the Persian religious prophet Zoroaster, who was the first to claim that everyone who worships his religion goes to an afterlife of unlimited joy, everyone else goes to an afterlife of eternal torment, and all opposition to his religion is directly caused by a being of pure evil.

^I'm with this guy^
Zoroaster started the fad that started "all the best wars" as George Carlin would say.

 

[Exfil 22]

Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.

That was something of a joint effort, if I recall correctly

 

[rutger5000]

Sorry I have to go for popes here. No offence to current popes and catholics, but the old ones were sadistic powerhunger greedy bastards. In my opinion they did unreversable damage to the world. Otherwise I'll have to go to Stalin, but I doubt his influence will remain longer then 200 or 300 years. No wait Mao Zedong is probably worst destroying most of an over 3000 year old culture, and killing milliones in the process.
Hitler definitely was an awefull guy, but he doesn't make my top ten. He was a product of his environment, Germany was ill treaded, people were hungry and poor and I doubt the jews were up to sharing their jobs and above else he was a raving lunatic. As horrible as it may sound I can not see him as one of the most evil persons ever existed.

 

[sb666]

im going to have to say stalin defintely

 

[Travis Higuet]

Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.

Probably not as many as communism.

Ugh if you're wanting to start a thread about communism please refer to the one that already exists.
But in short: The actual ideals of communism didn't cause any of those deaths, it was the power-hungry assholes who distorted and corrupted the ideals of communism that caused those deaths.

The ideals of communism ALWAYS lead down the same road. They go against human nature, thus humans resist. When they do, the strongman arises in the name of "the people". It's really amazing how many millions of people have been killed by socialist leaders in the name of "the people". More amazing still is socialism's disciples just carry on, preaching the glory of toiling tirelessly with no hope of improving your life.

That is true communism is impossible, as noble as the ideals are communism cant happen because by nature people only care about themselves and possibly the person they intend to mate with and even that is a maybe.
Although this strongman thing is kinda of an odd idea, Lenin motivated people through his eloquent words that gave people hope. Not through an imposing nature. Also you can't really argue against revolutionary leaders acting for the name of the people, democracy in america started in the name of the people, and even the horrible politicians today claim their decisions are "for the people"

Lenin wasn't a "strongman" in the traditional sense, because he was one of the founders of the revolution. The Soviet Union was founded out of the ashes of a corrupt monarchy. I never said Every single leader of communist nations is evil, I said every communist GOVERNMENT eventually resorts to evil, because as the years go by the strongman becomes the only way to force people to submit to a system that can't keep any of it's promises.

Also, no, my post was not copied and pasted. I attempted to preemptively destroy and disable your ammunition stockpiles *wink*. I love debate, and I also hate communism. I've therefore had this discussion a thousand times. My apologies if not everything I said was directly applicable to your particular viewpoints. I was arguing against communism in theory, not merely it's representative in front of me.

I'd like you to think about this. Why do the words "self interest" put a bad taste in your mouth? Do you think humanity has more to offer the universe than ants? Personally, I do. I doubt there would be much art or creativity in a world where the dominant species was hive minded, and worked only for the betterment of the whole. I am not saying that as humans we shouldn't care about humanity. I am saying that as humans we should be free to live, create, and provide for whomever we choose to provide for. For me, it is my wife, my two children, and then myself, in that order. Beyond that, I give to charity, and I help those I can within my social circle.

I pay taxes specifically for the government to provide what services they are obligated to provide as per the 18 enumerated powers of the constitution. Congress has no authority beyond that, and any taxes collected towards execution of authority beyond that, I consider stolen. The constitution isn't some dusty outdated guideline. It is the foundation of all law in this country, and has the force of law itself. Any law created in contradiction to the guidelines of our constitution is invalid. There is a process by which our constitution can be amended if that is necessary. Such was the case with the abolition of slavery, and the granting of universal sufferage. If you and those like you feel that our constitution is lacking, then feel free to add to it in the manner laid down by law. Neither you nor your avatars in government however have the authority in any way to simply ignore it. This is a nation of laws, not the whims of men.

Sometimes, I get on a roll, so.... just keep in mind, I'm talking to everybody. It's a group discussion. I realize that you may not even be an American, and even if you were, that we weren't talking about the constitution. Like I said, I get going, and I bring it all to the table. hehe

plus..... its really late.....

 

[spartan231490]

i dont give a bloody thought to the past, and neither should anyone else. keep your eyes on the present and construct a better future.
in modern times, i'd direct almost all of my anger to the dick who made Spam E-mail. stupid F**KING ******, i'll rip his effing guts out if i meet him!
oh yeah, the corrupt politicians and world leaders around the globe are pretty bad too. i dont know enough people to make these kinds of judgements to myself let alone to the online community, so im stopping here.

we must remember our past so we do not make the mistakes they did, and to give us a sense on where to go from here.

"The only thing man can learn from history, is that man cannot learn from history."

Just had to throw that in there.

OT: The most evil people are likely people you've never heard of. But, if I had to pick a well-known individual. I would pick whoever was president of the US during WWII. Firebombing of Dresden killed 40,000; and there were firebombings that killed more. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. A lot of innocent civilians were killed to end that war. If I had to pick someone from very recent history, I'd say George W. Bush. It is my belief that the things he did will lead to a major, global economic disaster within the next decade. And he had no reason to believe that it wouldn't. That's evil.

 

[Racecarlock]

Who is the most evil person in history? God. He sends down a bunch of different prophets and commandment sets down so religion is confusing and violent, he smites people for not following his rules, he ordered moses to murder a town, he had his son crucified for shit that wasn't even his fault, he kills people at random for no reason, and to top it all off, he created this whole mess in the first place. Genocide, murder, crime in general. He put our brains together like that. He also invented nature, the cruelest force ever. And he also put a bunch of rocks out in space that could hit and kill us all at any time along with black holes and rogue stars and every other astronomical danger. Also according to some religions every accident that ever happened is gods will. So he's to blame for that too. I'd rather hang out with the devil, at least his place is warm.

 

[Travis Higuet]

"Few people on this planet knows what it is to be truly despised. Can you blame them? I earn a living fronting an organization that kills 1200 people a day. Twelve hundred people. We're talking two jumbo jet plane loads of men, women and children. I mean, there's Attila, Genghis... and me, Nick Naylor. The face of cigarettes, the Colonel Sanders of nicotine."

What ridiculous trash. Tobacco companies don't kill anybody. They sell a product. They have not once ever forced anyone to buy it. If you are stupid enough to use it until it kills you, then that's your choice. Saying tobacco companies kill people is no different than saying they were killed by OREO cookies, or Mcdonalds. Almost anything can kill you if you are to stupid to know it's or your own limits. You can even die from drinking to much water. Grow up and take responsibility for your own actions.

 

[Simonism451]

Sorry I have to go for popes here. No offence to current popes and catholics, but the old ones were sadistic powerhunger greedy bastards. In my opinion they did unreversable damage to the world. Otherwise I'll have to go to Stalin, but I doubt his influence will remain longer then 200 or 300 years. No wait Mao Zedong is probably worst destroying most of an over 3000 year old culture, and killing milliones in the process.
Hitler definitely was an awefull guy, but he doesn't make my top ten. He was a product of his environment, Germany was ill treaded, people were hungry and poor and I doubt the jews were up to sharing their jobs and above else he was a raving lunatic. As horrible as it may sound I can not see him as one of the most evil persons ever existed.

Sorry, but apart from some pretty sick things you said ("I doubt the jews were up to sharing their jobs"? Really? Can't we throw some clichee of stealing polacks in there,while we are at it?) how were Stalin and Mao not products of their enironment? If I am not totally mistaken, there were some reasons for the revolutions in Question.

OT: Apart from the obvious choices, I'll vote for the Spanish Inquisition guys.

 

[spartan231490]

Well it appears that most likely you don't understand what happened in the Soviet Union because when the state was under a dictatorship of the proletariat situation was when Lenin had most influence in the newly liberated country, further more if the dictatorship of the proletariat is a transitional phrase, why is it that you never care to mention what the next phase entails, rather you decide to go off on a rant about Marx being a greedy monster that has no basis in really anything that we modern people know of the man. Furthermore you refer to the bourgeois as "producers" when in fact they were never the people who created anything are just people who tell others to work and reap the benefits. If everyone works for the good of the society this class is completely unnecessary, and this sadly is where Marxism falls apart, the problem with pure communism is that human beings are inherently greedy even the most selfless person in the world could succumb to their own petty desires and why the system fails, not because its designed to help jealous greedy people because its designed with the assumption that people can put their greediness aside for the good of the community.

While communism does fall apart because it fails to account for human greed, it also fails because of the second phase of the transition from capitalism to communism. SOcialism, or the "middle stage", is actually what Soviet Russia had turned to directly after Lenin's death. Lenin's New Economic Plan (NEP), which allowed for a certain level of privatization amongst the peasantry, was swiftly dismantled after his death because, at one level, it was too much like the capitalist society Lenin had overthrown (though he actually only succeeded in wresting Russia out of feudalism).


The bourgeoisie might not be perceived as producers, but that is in fact what they are. They provide the means of production through which the laborers can then turn their labor into capital. For this they are compensated, though at a rate which Marx felt was unfair i comparison to their contribution (hence his formula of "from each....to each...).

Yes the bourgeois "provide" the means of production through ownership of it, but this is completely unnecessary if the workers themselves own the means of production so the workers can reap the full benefits of their labors rather than what small compensation the factory owner provides. As for socialism being the middle stage didn't Marx actually put communism as the road to a perfect socialist society? Also Lenin's NEP actually rendered the country more like modern socialism such as in countries like Finland, where there is private property and limited private business but all essential things are still provided by the state. It seems odd to me that you seem to take Lenin's achievement of destroying feudalism in Russia so lightly but that's a different topic.

You neglect the fact that without the owner, the factory wouldn't be there in the first place. The workers you talk of could have gotten together, pooled their resources, and opened up a factory in which they were all co-owners, and yet they did not. If not for the hated capitalist, there would be no factory, and there would be no jobs. Your hatred of wealth success and power is borne of a ignorance of how those things are created. You speak of equitable distribution of resources as if those resources fell from the sky. What we have is what we've created for ourselves. If you dislike the terms of your employment, you are free in a free market system to "sell" your labor elsewhere. If you think you know how to run a factory, or any other business for that matter better than the people who are running them now, then do it. Get in the market and compete. Nobody is stopping you. I just don't understand where this philosophy of entitlement comes from. What makes you think you have any right at all to what another has shed his blood and sweat for? If labor union owned factories are in all ways superior, then the free market would reflect that. Their overhead would be lower, the quality of their products greater, and the price to consumers more affordable. Unfortunately for the true believers of the left, those things are almost never true. And when they are, congratulations, you've just successfully competed in a free market. What makes you think your state regulated economic equality will be more "fair"? In a capitalist system, wealth and power can be earned by anyone. When wealth and power are controlled by the state, it's all about who you know. Only "party" members, and friends of those in power have access to wealth and power. Your argument that these are abuses of communism is tired, and irrelevant. If they are abuses, then they are inevitable abuses. I defy you to identify for me a communist revolution in all of human history where these so called abuses have been absent. Those with power in communist systems NEVER live the same as those without it. People like you get all starry eyed talking about the great communist utopia that's just around the corner, if only we give it another chance. If only smart people with no hidden agenda can oversee the next communist revolution, it will work out. This time it will be different. It won't be. Communism sounds fair, and ends in mass graves, because it tries to make humans into something they are not. Humans are not ants, and they never will be, thus communism will always fail, hopefully before the mass graves part. Capitalism sounds unfair (to people like you) but in reality, it gives everybody the chance to make the best of their situation. Nobody is guaranteed success in every endeavor, but nothing stops you from trying again. Not everybody has to be an owner in capitalism. Employers need employees. The left's problem with capitalism isn't that it's not fair, but rather that it is. Capitalism is even forgiving in its fairness. Fail once, and you'll get another chance. Fail at that, and you can have another. Nobody is stopping you. The left will never admit that of course, because the left doesn't understand fairness despite their endless use of the word to flog their political opponents. Fairness is when you get what you have earned. You reap both the benefits, and the consequences of the choices that YOU make. It is unfair to expect those who made good choices in their lives, and worked hard, to drag the dead weight of those who expect others to feed clothe and shelter them in the name of fairness. You think I am against charity? You would be wrong. I give, because I can, and because I like to help people. When the product of my labor is confiscated, there is no charity as nothing was given. When I give, it must be because I choose to do so. When I give because I must, then it is not generosity or altruism that motivates me, but rather the preservation of myself. Whether the thief is a knife wielding punk on a street corner, or a representative of the IRS makes no difference. Another point of clarification, I am not against taxes collected pursuant to the execution of the 18 enumerated powers of Congress as laid out in the constitution. But when money is collected to buy the votes of the entitlement class, then it is not a tax, because no such tax is authorized by our constitution. It is theft.

Very well said sir, I honestly couldn't have put it better myself. I love the deep-down internal contradictions that nobody seems to notice about the communist ideal, but I digress. Out of curiosity, have you ever read the Sword of Truth series?

One thing that I really really really want to emphasize about your post because it is so often overlooked and is such a very very important point:
"The left's problem with capitalism isn't that it's not fair, but rather that it is. Capitalism is even forgiving in its fairness. Fail once, and you'll get another chance. Fail at that, and you can have another. Nobody is stopping you. The left will never admit that of course, because the left doesn't understand fairness despite their endless use of the word to flog their political opponents. Fairness is when you get what you have earned. You reap both the benefits, and the consequences of the choices that YOU make."

Admittedly, capitalism doesn't do this perfectly, once a business becomes big it has a lot of advantages that limit the ability of others to compete, but it certainly does this better than communism.

 

[doorofnight]

Whoever made the Bible. That book got alot of people killed.

I am quite far from being religious myself, but I would respectfully point out that the Bible itself has a lot of really good messages in it about love and being accepting and understanding(so does the Qur'an, and most other religious texts, for that matter, and before someone tries to contradict me: jihad just means 'struggle' as in the struggle to survive and worship as a Muslim, the idea has been used, perversely, by radical clerics, especially in the last century, to mean preemptive violence, which is not how the vast majority of muslims interprets that word).

However, I would say, in keeping with the tone of this thread, that the most evil type of people in history are one's who take the messages of love and peace and understanding in religious texts and use them to justify violence and seclusion and bigotry of a great deal of varieties. They give their religion and beliefs a bad name and are by far the worst type of hypocrits, in my opinion.