i saw a documentary over the weekend about histories most evil people, and inevitably it was slanted toward western 'evil men'....

it contained the obvious (?) who's who, Hitler, Stalin, osama bin laden etc...

But as the programme continued i thought to my self that a lot of the people appearing on the list ( figures from historical conflicts) could have easily been considered heroes if the situations or outcomes of the conflicts were reversed

i.e. Hitler, Mussolini, and the emperor of Japan heroes and Churchill, Roosevelt, villains....

the more i looked at the supposed most evil men in history, i thought to myself, it was all a matter of perspective...the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the native Americans by the almost all white u.s. military was, to the mostly white public heroic, (men like general Custer) saw it as a necessary battle and many ( in my view) war criminals, like Custer have received medals of honour for that war...


Absolute evil, it's a matter of perspective...right ?

Mike Pain....Totally Agree...in truth as much as the WEST talk about Hitler..the truth is many in England and USA agreed with him...and would have allowed him to exist, if he hadn't got too cocky and decided to invade Poland... If you know your history Chamberlain virtually offered him Czechoslovakia and if you remember the SAME self serving moralising Western powers stood as the league of Nations..the forerunner to the UN... and allowed the man to run riot in Spain... and I haven't even touched on the disgrace of Ethiopia and what they allowed Mussolini to get away with there... So when it comes to Evil we can safely say that Hitler is only evil because he outdid what the West was doing in Africa, India and other parts of the colonies...

Further it you really think about it...they say Hitler was evil for his behaviour toweeards the Jews, but how different was it really to America's behaviour towards Blacks, who were STILL enslaved long after WW2 if you think about it, when did we really get freedom..in that country..1960's, then think about when Africa and the West Indiea gained so called independance..the same period... and We haven't even touched on South Africa yet and Aparthied.. yet South Africa was part of the Allied Armies that fought for 'FREEDOM' and they have the cheek to call Hitler evil...
Oh i nearly forgot the Iron Curtain, and what the so called Free West allowed the USSR to get away with behind the Iron curtain...Evil Hmmm?

i agree with all your points, (fast forward today in to modern times). Saddam Hussein was the west’s ally when he bombed and gassed Iran, and also called the west’s friend and I’m sure all much of heroic descriptions. but when he dared to strike out on his own, going so far as to change the way he dealt with oil ( euros instead of dollars) he was then evil and a threat to the world etcc...

now the 'west' is turning it's sights on Iran....a country that, immediately after 9/11 offered it's support to America, which they then accepted, only to call it part of the axis of evil ...now weather or not you agree or hate Iran’s current legally ( and i emphasis the point again legally) elected president, this gives no country the right to invade it.....i tried to have a discussion with 101st about the subject, but the captain America wannabe would have non of it.

the label of evil is used by those in power to demonise other leaders as a prelude to justify the previously unjustifiable....many British colonials depicted the 'native leaders' as barbaric and at the very worst evil...

I also agree with these assessments. As I have said before, the writers of history usually flavor there writing to favor their leanings (race, nationality, region...ect).

Exposes' have shown who and who people like Custer actually were. The American Indian's place in American history is and enigma to say the least. There stance against the ruthlessness of the whites aggressive take over. The truth is out there and American history books are reflecting it more and more.

this is why groups like the aryan nation and others are cropping up, they can feel the ping of truth oozing out and the reality of what has happened in this country being put in proper perspective. it is devastating to them.

I don't follow absolute evil, but hitler's agenda certainly was over looked and even supported initially until it was recognized that he was bent on total world domination.

imperialism, colonialism and the like will not work today. things are in the open now and with the statements being made and open forays to fight so called terrorists aggression these things have been rendered hapless.

papa doc, samoza, amin and the european dictators recently deposed are signs of how the ego and power will currupt men and blind them to the plight of their fellow creatures. blind ambition is a great discription of it.

and before any one says any thing absolute was a typo !!!

I did not notice mike, i am not a good speller anyway and forget to do spell check.

my question is what does absolute evil say to us?

Charles manson, the green river killer, the guy who killed the young men in houston and buried them in his yard and under his house gacy i believe, dahmer, zodiac...epitome of evil i would say.

whenever there is an act, wider society finds repulsive, we condemn it as if it's beyond the nature of any 'ordinary' human....in war one is trained to kill...as many people as possible, and yet when one chooses to exercise this ability inherent in all people humans, without the say so of some appointed higher authority one is condemned, the Cubans who tried to overthrow Castro in the bay of pigs incident, I’m sure were called by the u.s. ( at least in closed circles) heroes.... and yet by many Cubans on the island called them invanders..and at the very worst, murderers...


dahmer, zodiac ? what about the columbine killers?... they have a cult heroic status whispered among the downtrodden social outcasts of society.... even though old men in white suits within mainstream society don't acknowledge this or shun the mere idea of it...how many African Americans thought that O.J. killed his wife, and in a perverse way, give him a kind of heroic status... and how many 'white people' thought he was pure evil ?...

columbine shooter cult heroes...hadn't heard that but nothing surprises me any more.

i remember when i hung out on the California beaches around big sur. i was talking to a girl once around a camp fire and she said that she had been in the Manson harem. i kind of laughed it off and joked about it and she showed me her wrists. there were slash marks all over them which she said were from time he had asked her to prove her love for him to her by cutting her wrists.

never mind i lost interest in her really fast, she said told me some gruesome things that were done in their groups orchastrated by him.

Actually, what you describe is perspective, not evil. Evil is in the intent. Just the same as it is with good. One common saying is 'The road to hell is paved with good intention.'

Is that to say Jesus, as accused author of the Christian religion is 'evil'? Was it his intent to have hundreds of thousands, if not millions executed in his name? Or was it to bring peace to a troubled world? To give hope to the hopeless? Was it his fault that Rome got involved and began a crusade of bloodshed that is yet to end?

Certainly 'evil', in the context in which you present it, is bound in perspective. But then one must define what 'evil' is. Evil is an action, a 'doing' rather than a 'being'.

A gun is not 'evil', what is done with it might be. The person who invented it might be considered 'evil'. But then it can be argued as not his fault that his invention is being used to kill humans rather than just animals, as could have been his intent. See what I mean? Things can get quite convoluted by simply just trying to determine perspective.

Which is why I argue that 'evil' is in the intent. In the doing. Can it be agreed that it is 'evil' to 'murder', that is killing for personal reasons, rather than to kill accidentally as in manslaughter? It can be argued a number of ways, the nature of 'evil', but I say evil has no nature. It is not an 'entity'. It the intention behind the act.

Maybe none will agree with my argument, but as an objective observation, evil cannot always be in the perspective, for that only leads to, well it leads to the type of world we have today.

An 'evil' entity causing otherwise innocent human beings to do 'evil' things is merely an excuse to do more of the same. It is an excuse used to absolve oneself of responsibility for one own actions. A means of ridding oneself one guilt. And perspective is the means by which that guilt can be lain at another's feet. That is what you, the starter of this thread, said was 'absolute evil'. I did not argue the 'absolute' just the evil. I am seriously trying to keep this short...

soul

certainly everything can be seen as perspective if you choose. but is not perspective an opinion and possibly truth?

the saying you gave about good intentions is about people not taking action on what they would do in the realm of precieved good intent. to save that jesus is responsible is not a creditable assumption at all. the point in the saying that the intentions were not followed through on.

my pastor often says that there are many great ideas and solutions in the graves of people who did not act on them for one reason or another.

Rome was a terror to Jerusalem and that region long before Christ arrived.

i don't see any problem coming from the idea of nuclear power being both a blessing and a terror. the use of it is what gets men in trouble. a poppy plant is a beautiful plant. only when it is processed and morphine is derived is where men choose to either abuse it or use it for good (medicine).

i have made the statement many time that evil is not a tangible thing. you can not touch evil, it is a decision that people make some times by coertion and sometimes purely as a personal choice.

whether one believes in satan or not personal responsibility can not be abdicated. in the book of romans 6th chapter it tells us that we are servants of whom we CHOOSE to SERVE whether it is evil or good. don't know how islam or the koran or anyother book handles sin. christianity does not absolve christians of their commiting sin. God forgives it but you will reap what you sow.

the law of reciprocity...

Indeed. I agree. I can see that you are not bound by your faith, as many are, but are supported by it. I admire that. It is a rare thing to encounter. Although I must interject- I did not say that Jesus was responsible, I only posed a question concerning perspective.

As for the statement I made, it actually deals with the actions people have taken claiming they meant well. The crusades come to mind. Certainly it can be argued they meant well trying to convert the people they *perceived* as lost souls into a faith the *perceived* to be their only salvation. Christianity is a perspective religion. I refuse many of its tenets, especially the damnation of all who do not convert to their faith. This is similar to the Muslim belief. All infidels are doomed. Says who? Not the God I know.

Only after many years as a Christian devotee did I come to see and understand its flaws. The same flaws that exist in many of the worlds religion. Their divisive beliefs that they are better or favored over those who do not believe as they do.

For this they die and cause others to die. All in the name of belief. In blind faith to their belief. Ultimately, all in ignorance. If one would but take the time to meditate on these things, one would arrive at Absolute Truth concerning our relationship to each other quite quickly. How can you deny your sister life-pierce her heart-knowing that it is your own?

I'm sorry. Not you specifically. I just got up on my soap box for a minute there....
But yeah, for the most part, I agree with you. Keep up the good work.

soul

…all is a matter of perspective…so there is no such thing as evil therefore absolute evil