Quote:
Originally Posted by RoryMor
If Robert Mugabe were to seek employment based on his current CV, he would be unemployable. The same could be said about Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao and many others.
However they all impressed people who followed them uncritically. Not only that even when it was obvious that they were leading people down the path to ruin they continued to support him. Many of the loyal supporters do (did) not benefit financially or in terms of getting access to power. Yet they remain loyal. The person is portrayed by their supporters as 'misunderstood', too right any army of psychiatrists would have a job trying to understand them.
|
first, evil people appeal to other's selfish side or ego enticing them to corruption. when people are fooled into raping the bottom to get to the top, it's easier to keep a stronghold because their will always be those who are comfortable and without conscience. the bottom tier are usually not very intelligent and/or lack resources and clout or the few that have intelligence and conscience usually fall in the lower tier by default or rarely make it to the top simply because they are outnumbered by those who are more common in terms of human politics.
i've always noticed often the unrealistic glamorization of power or agression or even unjustified rationalization of evil acts(this is stupid). there are often erroneous characteristics attributed to evil that are misplaced. it's like a person watching someone from afar and imagining and projecting all sorts of romantic and virtuous characteristics that have nothing to do with the person. i have never understood why some people are like this. i can only sum it up to naivete and/or just stupidity. all easily exploited.
there are those types of people who will sacrifice others even for greed or ego. bad character has no socio-economic background. but only by improving human life, can you improve humanity's character overall by giving to those who would otherwise be ruthless and to improve the life of the populace that isn't sociopathic-prone.
i think there is real justification for this reasoning. if you look at history quality of life was horrible. there was no medicine and heinous ignorance. you can imagine, there was no painkillers and medicine as of today, so pain, misery and the perverting of the mind and maliciousness was normal as well children were abused at a tender age as a matter of course and were rough handled just as a consequence of common life of the day. this ignorance as well as harsh life will breed degenerate humans.
women had no rights and were often raped and forced to bear children which they have no personal inclinations to or be wives to men in the same vein. all this breeds unnatural selection as well.
we have evolved a lot BUT we have evolved more on a physical level than on a genetic level. this primitive past has been recent on an evolutionary scale and we are still seeing and dealing with the effects.
as technology and more humane measures increase; a more saner, intelligent, ethical, compassionate and better breed may be born as time goes forward. Meaning, humans should become more naturally ethical as a whole species across the board.
i'm seeing a bit of it in the younger generation, most of them seem a lot more reasonable, compassionate or not as ruthless as the former generations.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
