Browse > Home / BBC, Crime / Evil Systems vs. Evil Individuals

| Subcribe via RSS

Evil Systems vs. Evil Individuals

October 2nd, 2014 Posted in BBC, Crime by

Another day, another war and I’ve been thinking a lot lately about evil systems versus evil individuals. When it comes to doing evil, individuals that carry out, or are perceived to be carrying out, evils are more readily demonized than systems that carry out larger evils. Take, for example, Hitler versus the Soviet Union. Despite the number of dead in the Soviet Union surpassing the number of dead in Nazi Germany, Hitler is demonized in a way that the Soviet Union is not. I’ve often wondered why this is. Could it be that the qualitative nature of Hitler’s actions were more evil than the nature of the Soviet Unions actions? I don’t think that passes scrutiny. The qualitative nature of the Holodomor is just as horrific, in it’s own way, as the Holocaust was. The only difference is responsibility for the Holocaust is pinned on one individual and the responsibility for the Holodomor is pinned on the Soviet Union, a system, rather than just Stalin.

I get the sense that the international community is more eager to chase down evil individuals than evil systems. Even on a state-level, we are far more eager to chase down individuals rather than reform rotten systems. That’s been shown to be true especially in the wake of the historic sex offence scandals. Individuals are demonised in the national papers in a way that rotten systems rarely are. It’s a cop out. It’s just easier that way but what’s easiest is rarely what’s right.

One Response to “Evil Systems vs. Evil Individuals”

  1. John Newell Says:

    the solution:

    Psycheocracy (Selection of Leaders based on personality)TOP

    Almost all Congressmen are very convincing con-artists who give the im-
    pression that they are honest, compassionate and loyal to the voters who
    elect them. Their terms in office proves them to be the opposite; voting
    for bills in favor of corporations and for bills that are profoundly anti-
    democratic. These Congressmen can get away with it because the voters
    cannot tell the difference between honest, loyal (to the voters) candidates
    and candidates who are con artists. Fortunately psychologists can tell
    the difference between honest people and con-artists. Thus we have sol-
    ution to our problem:
    Form a local political club, then advertise for applicants for the position
    of primary candidate. The club should then should use rigorous tests,
    including, most importantly, psychological evaluation, to select the best
    applicant for the position of the club’s primary election ( if any ) can-
    didate. The club should then run its candidate against primary candidates
    of other clubs in the same party and same Congressional district and
    win. The club should then run their candidate in the general election and
    The club’s candidate will be able to tell the voters that he was selected
    scientifically, in an open meeting by club members. The candidate
    could, further more, say that his opposition, in the primary and general
    election, were selected by two or three party hacks, in a smoke filled
    back room one the basis of the opposition candidates loyalty to corp-
    orate PACs and his party machine, not to the voters.
    Large institutions of all kinds use rigorous tests and psychological
    evaluation almost all the time for the selection of important personnel
    with great success. This method of selection could also be success-
    fully used in politics.
    For organising the election of psycheocratic political representatives,
    the following is suggested: First, independent, bipartisan committees
    should be formed of ten to twenty people. The Establishment will, of
    course, be very interested in infiltrating committees as well as by free-
    lance opportunists, lunatics and various political groups; so it would
    be advisable to involve, say, three psychologists and three lawyers,
    acceptable to the psychologists, to keep undesireables out. Vetting
    also should be applied to applicants for club membership.
    To prevent the political reputation of the organising committee, if any,
    from spreading to the clubs that they form, and to discourage undes-
    ireables from attempting to join the committee and club, the members
    of organising committees should be prevented from joining the clubs
    that they form for a period of time, unless the club that they form ad-
    mits them with a two thirds vote.
    It might advantageous to set up a alternative or shadow congress
    with delegates from the described clubs. The shadow congress could
    perform the following functions:
    1) Advise the present Congress
    2) Lobby or pressure the present Congress
    3) In case of a political or social breakdown, replace the present
    4) Provide candidates for the next Congression election