Most Evil Human In History Aside From the Big Two

[Hamish Durie]

The coke brothers for systematicly destroying this world then making insitutions that teach that they are helping us.
Thank you hungry beast

 

[Yureina]

Mao Zedong.

I second that. That guy was a sick egotistical bastard who killed tens of millions and made many more suffer because he desired such. For what? Politics? Vanity? Neglect?

That man was a monster.

Not a monster. A fool.

Thing is with saying Hitler,Stalin, Mao etc. is that it wasn't just them on their own.

To pick a human being is problematic in that respect, to pick a regime or a collective of individuals is more appropriate.

As I can't pick individuals I would say those who worked at Unit 731 and the Americans who guarenteed the murderers immunity from their crimes in exchange for their research.

EDIT: 'pick an individual'

The 731 guys are certainly very high on my list as well. I feel sick just thinking about the stuff that was done there... :s

 

[Therumancer]

Mao Zedong- greatest mass murderer in human history.

Well, yes and no.

I might disagree with his policies, but Mao was pretty much motivated by making China a better place. Just because I disagree with him, doesn't mean his motives were evil.

Terrible Logic. I can argue that all of the murderers throughout history have done it *for a reason* that doesn't excuse them for what they did. They ordered innocent people slaughtered simply to meet their ends. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, all were motivated to make the 13 colonies a better place. And in the event they didn't kill some 78 million individuals simply because they were doing that. They didn't kill *any* innocent individuals as afar as I know. Feel free to prove me wrong. Motive means nothing. I kill my neighbor because I think his yard is a blight on the beauty of the neighborhood. My original thought wasn't inherrently evil, in fact it very well could be very true, maybe it was just dirt with those pink flamingo yard ornaments sitting in it. But when I am arrested for his murder no one will think, "Well his yard did look like shit. Let the guy go." NO! I'll be tried for murder. Murder is murder, no matter the motive.

See, warfare and even mass murder are not nice things, but in the end they are just tools and the expression of will. Many people who have done such things were evil, but others, well not really. It's not about how many lives you end. I hate the guy and his politics, but I'd consider him less evil than Stalin or Hitler, and I don't think either of them would make my personal top five if I was pushed to come up with one, and maybe even not the top ten.

For the sake of pure evil, my #1 is Pol Pot, not because of how many he killed, but because of him not really having a valid reason for the people he killed, as well as going out of the way to make them suffer.

I'd rate guys like say the BTK (Bind, Torture, Kill) killer as higher than say Hitler or Stalin because he had no real purpose to his murders other than personal gratification, he enjoyed human suffering. He knew flat out what he was doing was wrong, but did it anyway, and had no purpose other than his own enjoyment.

Pol Pot is like a Green River Killer, BTK, Jefferey Dahmer, or other maniac who managed to get into power where he could unleash his evil on a massive scale. The whole purpose being death and misery, and looking for any justification to spread it. I don't think Mao, Hitler, or Stalin started out thinking "gee, I want to horribly kill a bunch of people, how do I justify this and get people to follow me", rather they started out thinking about how they could make life better for people, and wound up where they were. At the worst you can look at them and invoke the old statement about the road to hell being paved with good intentions, and depending on your personal politics might not even think that applies when it comes to someone like Mao (ie if your a believer in Communism, your generally going to believe he acted for the greater good and simply did what had to be done). I don't think Mao anticipated China becoming what it is now, any more than Lenin saw what was going to happen to Russia.

The thing is that actual evil is usually recognized, and thus it's a very rare thing when you see someone who is outright evil convincing enough people to back them to operate on a national, or global level. That's why we don't have many people like Pol Pot, though in political arguements people will make the accusation because of the power the image carries, without it being true.

You just repeat yourself. "War and Mass Murder are just tools?" BULL F***ING SHIT. War is an uneeded tool if everyone would just grow a pair and learn to tolerate everyone elses ideas and beliefs. It is not needed. And Mass Murder is a tool of building fear, and silencing the masses. These are not 'just' tools, as you so elequantly put it.

And a charismatic person can persuade people to do whatever the hell they want. Hint hint- thats how Stalin, Lenin, Castro, (the other castro too), Hitler, Mussolini, and yes, even Mao, came into power. And it is how dictators keep their power today in many circomstances. The men you pointed out are evil. But I can defend them using the same logic you defended Mao.

There is a difference between tolerating a belief that isn't dangerous the the people around it, and between tolerating a belief which isn't a danger to society.

Do *NOT* put words into my mouth. Understand the topic being discussed here, the question is the most evil men. Read what I said very carefully. The point is that the number of deaths has nothing to do with how evil someone is, but the motivation. The point I'm making is that someone who killed simply for enjoyment is far more evil than someone who does it with good intentions.

I for example oppose both Hitler's ideal of Aryan rule, and Mao's principle of communism for example. I consider them both bad guys, due to their beliefs. They however did what they did with good intentions, and I myself also referanced the comment about what the road to hell was paved with to make that point. I feel numbers are less relevent than intent when we're talking about killing, and someone like say BTK might have killed a lot less people, but his motivation is what makes him worse than say Hitler, BTK murdered for little more than self gratification, Hitler for example at least believed he was doing the right thing (and his beliefs have nothing to do with whether I agree with him). Hence, when were talking about evil I would place someone like BTK higher on the list than Hitler, that doesn't mean Hitler isn't on it, it's just he's not as high on the list. The very highest position being occupied by someone who both had the self-grafifying motives of BTK, and was also a mass murderer, and that is Pol Pot. Outside of fiction situations like that are very rare because generally the real sickos don't have the abillity to rally people to operate on such a massive level.

Fine, you disagree with me, but leave it at that.

I will say however that your dead wrong about the founding fathers of the US. One of the very first things that was done after the revolution was for the British Crown loyalists to be rounded up and killed. A lot of them were dipped in molten tar, covered in feathrs, and left hanging up and down the roads as an example. The loyalists were called Whigs, and there was a massive purge.

See, the thing to remember is that the winners write the history books. Even so, when I was in school we learned about the purge of the whigs, albiet no numbers were given so nobody was keeping track, but we're looking at what was hundreds of thousands of people. The revolution was serious business and it was a big deal because of the divisions.

Understand that as much as nobody likes the idea of mass murder, the bottom line is that certain idealogies just can't exist together. If someone came into the US and conquered it, everyone wouldn't turn around and embrace the new culture, no, there would be constant gueriella warfare and civil war. The same applies everywhere. The only way to bring about a major change is to purge everyone on the other side as much as possible. It's not nice, but that's why wars, whether they be traditional, civil, or revolutionary, suck. Trying to talk our way around mass murder simply brings up more problems, and the inabillity to resolve major conflict. We killed the whigs, just as the French rounded up the nobles, crown loyalists, and anyone even suspected of being a supporter and killed them.

I also wrote a long message on the subject, but if I was you, I'd brace myself for things to get even worse. See the whole "there is never any excuse for mass murder", "take my hand, share the land" mentality is in for a rude awakening (the latter being a line from a famous left wing peace anthemn). There are too many people, not enough resources, and while we're sitting here in the comfort of our first world homes having discussions like this, hungry people who want better lives are looking to take those resources by any means nessicary. At the current rate of consumption the rate of production won't matter, we're just going to run out. I have a deep respect for morality, and people's views of what an ideal world should be like, but unfortunatly we live in this one and it sucks, I'm a hardened realist. If you chaff at things that have happened historically... well, it's just going to get worse.

Overall my philsophy to most conflict is that everyone is right... from a certain point of view (as Obi Wan would put it). There is no good and evil, it's us against them. Good and evil exist, but in general can't be applied in any absolute sense to most human action, since it's all about perspective and point of view. Very few people are truely evil. See, Hitler, gets on the list because of his overall occult objectives having to do with the restoration of a "master race" of psionic blonde haired, blue eyed giants, which all other men would be expected to serve.... basically the mass enslavement of humanity. Insane or not, and however a lot of his actions might be justified, that was his endgame, and there is no real way to justify that as being for the greater good. Stalin and Mao get on the list as both were subscribers of what some today refer to as "the human hive" theory, which is to say that free will should be subverted towards the good of the state, albiet both believed in members of the party being the empowered "caretakers" of humanity, sort of like the queen bees or alpha insects and also entitled to the highest standard of living humanity could provide. All of this is bad, but I don't think it approaches the pure evil of a guy calling himself "Bind, Torture, Kill" who did exactly that, knowing it was wrong, for no other reason than he took pleasure in human suffering, he had no belief, insane or not, that anything he did was for any kind of greater good. He doesn't even feel remorse over his actions, or even enough human empathy to try and fake it hoping that others would feel pity from him (or he didn't when I was seeing tapes of his testimony on the news and such).

 

[Therumancer]

[

Hitler and Stalin weren't evil to be honest.

Nice U-turn. Oh and I know alot about Hitler's goverment and philosophy, mainly through reading about other people who lived during that time who interest me. Now while I agree that Hollywood has twisted Hitler into a sort of cackling demon figure, but the truth is that the actual man was far worse than most potrayals show.

To put things into perspective, and something that can be viewed with a cooler head than Hitler and his buddies look at the example of "Bomber" Harris, known as "Butcher" Harris to the Germans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Harris

I know who bomber Harris is, I've written fucking essays ion bomber Harris, don't assume others are ignorant just because you are.


.

See, this is why we can't even have a conversation, and like so many things on message boards are going to have to agree to disagree. Trying to claim someone who disagrees with you is ignorant is well... frankly ridiculous. There are plenty of points we could discuss, but you seem intent on attacking rather than questioning, or politely trying to make make counter points, totally unwilling to accept that you could learn anything, or perhaps even if your right that you might be able to make a point by being reasonable.

That said, you seem to be intentionally missing the point about Harris in that his role as a war hero is totally dependant on our winning the war. Had we lost, would the Germans have seen it that way? You say that he was justified because "the Germans started it", but at the same time the Germans themselves would argue, especially if they had won, that the allies started it due to the Treaty of Versailles which was an insult to germany, especially since they would probably continue to argue the very same points from "World War I". A lot has been written about how from an outside perspective we like to view the wars seperatly, but from a German perspective, this was less true. Some apologists have even gone so far as to argue that differant terms in The Treaty Of Versailles might have averted the second world war.

I digress however, you argue things like how "Genocide was Hitler's Goal", not so, his goal was for german rule of the western world. Genocide was actually a side activity, he went after the Jews, but they were not the point of World War II, nor was killing all of them anything but a sideline to the business of empire.

Now, where Hitler was totally wanking insane, is if you look at his occult and eugenics goals about wanting humanity to be lead by a race of psychic blonde haired, blue eyed giants. Crazy or not, he was basically talking about developing, or "restoring" a genetic elite that would effectively rule everyone. He was basically looking to create an empire that as it's end goal would enslave humanity under the thumbs of genetic supermen. That's pretty evil.

However, all of your argueing gets away from the point, that for all of his killing, Hitler believed he was doing the right thing. He really believed the world would be a happier, shinier place for his actions. The amount of people he killed is irrelevent before why he killed them for the purposes of this thread. Nobody is saying that Hitler isn't evil (read my post very carefully), simply that his motives prevent him from being at the top of the list. A seriel killer who murders people for nothing other than their own gratification, someone like BTK or other similar, remorseless monsters, who want nothing other than to gain personal pleasure from suffering and death... who don't even try and control or channel themselves... well that's pure evil. Fine, you might disagree with my opinion, and this thread is for opinions, but I consider that worse than someone who kills a lot of people trying to do what they think is the right thing.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Snip

Umm... You quoted the wrong guy there. I didn't say that.

Whoops. Sorry, my bad!

No problem, man.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

Jesus? jokes, there is no such thing, the one of the most evil people is George W. Bush

I think you're confusing evil with stupidity, mine isn't really an individual but a group of people a find rather repugnant; the Puritan settlers. They oppressed people who expressed any form of individuality, accused their own people of witchcraft for their own personal gain, slaughtered the inhabitants of an entire nation and enslaved milllions of Africans. Also, I'd like to point out that this isn't a hate speech against Americans, it's not their fault that they're descendants of such a vile, cruel and sanctimonious people.

Few Americans are descendants of the Puritans. Most are descended from other nationalities, such as Irish or French.

 

[TonyVonTonyus]

Idi Amin is a good choice, OP. But who was that history teacher turned brutal prime minister? Tik Tak, Tip Top, something?

...

Pol Pot! Yeah, him [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_pot].

On a related note Benito Mussolini was a teacher...coincidence...yes.

Probably the only person who is TRULY evil is the person who uses evil as a justification for doing evil.

 

[Saulkar]

Worst human ever is definitively Mao Zedong, no one has killed more than him but at the same time no one killed as many as him believing it was empirically the right thing to do. .\=/.

That is a misconception. Nobody ever believes they're doing the wrong thing. Ever. Otherwise they don't do it.

They might see it as the wrong side according to society/other people, but in their eyes it is honestly the most correct thing to do. They also might come to believe it was wrong later, after the action. In light of new information you reassess your previous actions and conclude them erroneous or misguided. This is possible. You might even regret it mere moments after the action is done, or otherwise impossible to revert.

However, nobody ever does anything that, at the time they did it, they considered wrong.

That's why concepts like "good" and "evil" are human fabrications. Evil is what the winners of a war call the view of the defeated.

That is not what I meant. What I meant is that he thought it was essentially it the empirically BEST idea. Even if he later regretted it he still thought it the most ideal and that others would simply not do. While this is probably a gross overstatement the general idea applies. My bad. DERP!

 

[dantoddd]

Both the allies & the Nazi committed genocide by modern standards. Nazi were alot more genocidal.

and Nietzsche never said that the strong should dominate the weak, he simply said that this 'is' the case.

 

[dantoddd]

here is my pick.

Shirō Ishii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shir%C5%8D_Ishii

He ran something called Unit 731 during WWII

Here's a brief description

Prisoners of war were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia. Vivisections were performed on prisoners after infecting them with various diseases. Scientists performed invasive surgery on prisoners, removing organs to study the effects of disease on the human body.

Human targets were used to test grenades positioned at various distances and in different positions.Flame throwers were tested on humans. Humans were tied to stakes and used as targets to test germ-releasing bombs, chemical weapons, and explosive bombs.

Prisoners were injected with inoculations of disease, disguised as vaccinations, to study their effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

And here's the kicker

Arrested by the US occupation authorities at the end of World War II, Ishii and other Unit 731 leaders received immunity in 1946 from war-crimes prosecution before the Tokyo tribunal in exchange for germ warfare data based on human experimentation.

 

[Dr Jones]

-FLAWLESS SNIPPY VICTORY-

Not really his fault, he could not have foreseen it. For example if you save a child from dying and that child turns out to later be Hitler, are you a terrible person for saving the child?

The reason I blamed him is simply because what he was doing WAS evil in the first place, he was being greedy anyway. It's not like he was saving a child - he was practically stealing from the country! It's why i call him evil - he caused evil and was evil.

And don't forget Hitler did make Germany pretty strong again before he started that silly war of his - so don't go too hard on the man.

Hitler is a far worse person. The whole "He made Germany strong" is bull. After WWII Germany was fucked again, practically no countries wanted to sell wares or shit to them. Germany was as fucked as it was after WWI, there even was talk of the plan that France originally wanted during Versaille after WWI. The plan was to destroy Germany, dont let them do this again.

Oh yeah, if not fucking over his country is good 'nuff for you think of the millions of dead peeps. I say that beats greediness by a mile.

 

[Bonemonster]

There is no such thing as good or evil. Only two or more sides with opposing views.

This is just plain stupidity. Your philosophy prof sucks.

Shall I provide an example for you?

There are many people in the world that view Americans and The West in general as being evil. Are you an American? Do you live in "The West"? Are you evil?

What we perceive as "good" and "evil" are just ideas brought upon us by what we are taught and our experiences through life. Can you scientifically prove something as being "good"? Can you scientifically prove something as being "evil"?

 

[Kanatatsu]

There is no such thing as good or evil. Only two or more sides with opposing views.

This is just plain stupidity. Your philosophy prof sucks.

Shall I provide an example for you?

There are many people in the world that view Americans and The West in general as being evil. Are you an American? Do you live in "The West"? Are you evil?

What we perceive as "good" and "evil" are just ideas brought upon us by what we are taught and our experiences through life. Can you scientifically prove something as being "good"? Can you scientifically prove something as being "evil"?

This is absolutely the worst kind of trashy, "look at me, I decided to be a moral relativist today!" horseshit. When you grow up a little, you'll realize your shiny new intellectual bauble is worthless.

 

[Blatherscythe]

Joseph Stalin

If what I was told was right the man eas just as evil as Hilter

One of the most powerful and murderous dictators in history, Stalin was the supreme ruler of the Soviet Union for a quarter of a century. His regime of terror caused the death and suffering of tens of millions, but he also oversaw the war machine that played a key role in the defeat of Nazism.

Jouring the second would war. a number of prisoners of war were taken to slave labour camps and forced to work in freezing conditions. even after the Germens betrayed them and after the war.

Stalin wasen't a general. His strategy was throw bodies at the problem to swarm it, or until the enemy runs out of ammo. The punishment for retreating, getting captured or having a sense of self preservation was either a bullet to the brain box or they ship you off to a labour camp in Siberia, which by some accounts was worse than the Nazi Death Camps.

 

[Kinokohatake]

Hmmmm. I see conservatives listed, how about some extreme left wing nut cases. Oh the guy who helped found Earth Day killed his girlfriend and put her body in a suitcase for months in his closet.

Or the "cull the earth to fix the population" people. You first good sir or madam. Oh, Nancy Pelosi for her comments on how abortion is a fantastic cash saver.

 

[Dexiro]

Pedophiles? Oh come on OP, you can't help being retarded just like you can't help being a pedophilia. At least that's what Wikipedia tells me...

Anyway, I have no idea. My definition of 'evil' isn't fixed.

Sounds like you took a lot of offense there, something you want to tell us? And calling me retarded? Why? Some Pedophiles are more sick and dangerous than just people with a fetish.

I agree with you that some pedophiles are just downright sick and evil, but don't pull that whole thing implying that someone is a pedo just because they're being defensive of them, it's childish.

More on topic:

I came across a post from one of the "good" pedo's earlier today saying how he felt about the entire issue, it's actually really informative. Some of the things he says can make you a little uneasy but it's harmless atleast, he's due some respect for being open.

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/hmik2/this_show_is_disgusting/c1wld77

BUT what I'm here to talk about is the beans he spilt about the more dangerous pedophiles. The following link is a screenshot of a forum used to plan rapes and murders of children, yep a place like that exists on the internet.

http://i.imgur.com/YF6it.png

 

[Blatherscythe]

Pedophiles? Oh come on OP, you can't help being retarded just like you can't help being a pedophilia. At least that's what Wikipedia tells me...

Anyway, I have no idea. My definition of 'evil' isn't fixed.

Sounds like you took a lot of offense there, something you want to tell us? And calling me retarded? Why? Some Pedophiles are more sick and dangerous than just people with a fetish.

I agree with you that some pedophiles are just downright sick and evil, but don't pull that whole thing implying that someone is a pedo just because they're being defensive of them, it's childish.

More on topic:

I came across a post from one of the "good" pedo's earlier today saying how he felt about the entire issue, it's actually really informative. Some of the things he says can make you a little uneasy but it's harmless atleast, he's due some respect for being open.

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/hmik2/this_show_is_disgusting/c1wld77

BUT what I'm here to talk about is the beans he spilt about the more dangerous pedophiles. The following link is a screenshot of a forum used to plan rapes and murders of children, yep a place like that exists on the internet.

http://i.imgur.com/YF6it.png

And I thought that city on Tatooine was a hive of scum and villany. Those are the pedophiles I was talking about. In hindsight calling every pedophile a child rapist is wrong, they just have a fetish that if not acted upon can at most just make your skin crawl. They are normal people with a condition they cannot help, so be it then. I learned something today.

 

[GraveeKing]

-snip snap-

Hitler is a far worse person. The whole "He made Germany strong" is bull. After WWII Germany was fucked again, practically no countries wanted to sell wares or shit to them. Germany was as fucked as it was after WWI, there even was talk of the plan that France originally wanted during Versaille after WWI. The plan was to destroy Germany, dont let them do this again.

Oh yeah, if not fucking over his country is good 'nuff for you think of the millions of dead peeps. I say that beats greediness by a mile.

I did say quite clearly 'before he started the war again'.... and in a previous comment before that.

Anyways my point is his greediness lead to the independence of America - and a war to go with that. Which lead to the civil war eventually, another war (plenty died in that too). Then while colonizing the rest of America - the complete destruction of great plains Indians culture, many dead and abused there also.

So pretty much the greed of that one gentleman lead to creation of Independent America, which in it's own run has probably done a lot more harm than Hitler did - even if the country itself has tried to do good.
And at least Hitler had some kind of reasoning (albeit terribly racist and nasty reasoning which I DO NOT agree with), which was the fascist mind in the idea that getting rid of weakness in the country makes it better - so in a... weird... homicidal kind of way he was TRYING to make it better.

On a funny note, you could also say Jesus Christ was the most evil since he created Christianity and has lead to countless wars and feuds.

Really it depends on how you mean evil - the consequence of actions or the malicious intent, to cause chaos. Sometimes actions which seem terribly harsh actually mean better. Or good actions make things a hell of a lot worse in the long run. It's evil actions leading to bad consequences is how I define evil. And in a whole Hitler in his freakish way WAS just trying to make Germany a better country and in a whole unify Europe by taking it all over.

 

[deshorty]

Well..imo, Stalin is actually the 3rd or 4th most evil human if that. In history and now, there are so many more evil people that haven't even contributed anything to the world. At the very least Stalin gave Russia a decent standard of living. But enough about that. In my opinion, the Empress Dowager CiXi, is the most evil human in history (aside from Hitler). She indirectly killed hundreds of people in the Boxer Rebellions, (which ended in failure for everyone involved), she put China back several decades technologically because of her desire for power and overall put China in the worst state it had been in since the first opium war.

Okay, fair enough, but the leaders of the Boxer Rebellion actually believed that their fighting style would protect them from bullets! Yes, magic shadow boxing that made them impervious to bullets!

I would lay the blame for the Boxer Rebellion and the Opium Wars as a whole squarely at the feet of the British government. One might as well blame Queen Victoria (and/ or King George V) for all of the massacres in colonial Asia.

Yeah I read about that. Stupid boxers...But the opium wars were both countries fault. Both countries were too proud to trade with each other. On the massacres...Got to agree with you there.

 

[Dr Jones]

Really it depends on how you mean evil - the consequence of actions or the malicious intent, to cause chaos. Sometimes actions which seem terribly harsh actually mean better. Or good actions make things a hell of a lot worse in the long run. It's evil actions leading to bad consequences is how I define evil. And in a whole Hitler in his freakish way WAS just trying to make Germany a better country and in a whole unify Europe by taking it all over.

Personally a person with evil intentions that does good (in the long run) or a person with good intentions that fucks up, the person with good intentions is always the better. People should be and most often are defined by what they do, not what their actions lead to. Jesus was not evil, i'm a hardcore atheist, no fan of the church, but Jesus was not evil. He had some genuinely nice messages (as all religions prolly do) except for that they got raped.
Jesus is in no way a bad person, fix that thought.