The ladder of evil
[NOTE: This is a repeat of a previous post. Unfortunately, it seems as though it’s always a timely subject.]
Commenter “Ymarsakar” once made an interesting observation:
When the world declares Jews, Republicans, and whites to be non humans that need to be exterminated to get rid of a threat to humanity, most people will Obey.
Most will. They have nothing in their spine that can resist the Power of the World and its numbers. Nothing.
I have a slightly different take on it. I’ve long conceptualized the whole thing as a hierarchy of evil and the resistance to it, a sort of ladder with many rungs. Here they are, in order from most evil to most dedicated to fighting evil:
Some people will conceptualize, plan, and implement it as leaders.
Some people will actively cooperate with vigor.
Some people will support it but not actively participate.
Some people will be indifferent unless it directly reaches them or their family.
Some people will be somewhat disturbed by it, but manage to put it out of their minds most of the time and go on with their lives.
Some people will be disturbed by it and contemplate various forms of resistance, but will be too frightened to act.
Some people will be disturbed by it and will decide to act in small ways to resist it, ways they consider lower risk.
Some people will be disturbed by it and will decide to take great risks in order to resist it, but could be stopped by threats (not necessarily threats to themselves, but threats to friends and family).
Some people will risk all to actively resist it in every way they can.
An example of the latter would be those Poles who continued their rescue efforts and resistance despite this type of retribution from the Nazis:
Poland was the only place where German law rendered any assistance to Jews punishable by death. That punishment was severe and collective: It was meted out not only to the rescuer but also to his entire family and to anyone else who knew about such activities and did not report them. Almost 1,000 Poles were killed this way, including entire families whose children were not spared.
When we talk about the prevalence of evil in humanity, and whether people are “good at heart,” this is what I think we’re actually discussing. What percentage of the population belongs to each group? I don’t know, but if I had to guess at the shape of a graph, it probably would be a normal distribution—that is, the biggest bump would be in the middle groups, with much smaller numbers for the beginning and ending rungs of the ladder of evil.
So what causes the difference among the groups? Why is a person in one rather than another? Darned if I know, but I have ideas. Some of it probably has to do with devotion to something beyond oneself, which could be religion (in certain circumstances it could even be Communism—in Poland, for example, many of the resisters to the Nazis were Communists). This can lead to good or to evil (such as the 9/11 terrorists). Many of the differences among groups almost certainly involve personal traits that are some combination of nature and nurture, such as the extent of the devotion to liberty. And although psychopaths/sociopaths (the ladder’s first couple of rungs) are often born, certain societies in certain times can be especially effective at fostering and encouraging and promoting them, and using them most fully to further goals of the group rather than just goals of the individual psychopath/sociopath.
In the end, though, there is something mysterious about it all: the problem of evil, with which humankind has been wrestling for aeons.
“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn’t even be there,
eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters,
and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle.
Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back.” – Heraclitus
In order to decide what is evil, you need some absolute standards. In the non-marxist western world those standards are those that come from our Judeo-Christian heritage summarized in the Ten Commandments.
In under marxism, there are no absolute standards. It is all relative. According to Alinsky:
It can also have to do with a great distrust of organizations. The larger an organization is, the more corruptible it becomes; the more corruptible it becomes, the more corrupt it is. I trust no organization to benefit anything but itself. That is not to say that organizations are inherently evil, which would be the leftist persuasion (businesses, organized churches, but not govt), but I will leave it to me to decide if a certain action is beneficial to myself to my clients.
And speaking of evil, it raises a question which I have long entertained. What is the character of evil? Is it an active dynamic force such as Lucifer v. God, or is it rather a lack of good? To illustrate this second point would be akin to something in a refrigerator; the fridge does not bombard the item with cold waves, it simply removes the heat.
The distinction may simply be academic, but I suggest that it is an important point. If evil is the removal of good, can evil be reformed by re-instilling good? Likewise, if evil is its own malevolently active force, does succumbing to evil make rehabilitation futile?
I have no answers to these questions, just thought I’d throw the topic out there.
Sorry. Above entry is in error. This is what was meant to be posted. Perhaps neo could delete it.
In order to decide what is evil, you need some absolute standards. In the non-marxist western world those standards are those that come from our Judeo-Christian heritage summarized in the Ten Commandments.
In under marxism, there are no absolute standards. It is all relative. According to Alinsky:
“That perennial question, “Does the end justify the means?” is meaningless as it stands; the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, Does this particular end justify this particular means?…The end is what you want, and the means is how you get it…The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”
Notice that this marxist definition provides great leeway for all sorts of evil as defined by Judeo-Christian concepts.
The rungs of the ladder are not just amongst people but also within individuals. To some extent, our own evil within is dependent on circumstances. Circumstances that Americans have not had to deal with very much. What choice will we make when our life is on the line? Our morality is mutable because we are human.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn on evil:
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.”
And more from Solzhenitsyn:
“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”
We should always remember that marxists do not consider themselves evil. Lenin is still on view in his tomb in Red Square and Putin still extolls the “virtues” of Stalin. Two men who by Judeo-Christian standards were among the most evil who ever lived.
Your list of somes basically explains why Genetics and evolution works… no two people are the same in any way… so you have a spread of reactions to any point in reality with the majority usually in the healthiest most productive mean… (not always so, an less so in transitional times for the species, or bottlenecks etc)
if we were homogenized the way the left wants, we become more fragile as beings but easier to control, and this is where the left, for all its worhip of evolution (cause it negates god dont ya know (it doesnt if your smart enough to argue logically to an unresolvable point)), doesnt get their anti life, anti evolutionary ideas, etc
the point here is that any group that will allow itself to be the slave of another group or under the control of another, is a group that would be domesticated. domesticated creatures are not able to live in “the real world” because the idea of domestication is to remvoe the things that make it that way so that it doesnt go that way.
but some animals wont be domesticated. and in some cases domesticated really means living together in some semblence of peace (dogs vs cats).
humans are not domesticable…
if they were, we all would not be here!!!!
the list of somes would tell you why!!!
its the shotgun approach to solving lifes issues.
because it cant conceive, it has to generate solutions in terms of covering a solution space wiht enough variance that things work out (for some and not others)
the left likes to cry racism and that, but note, they have to deny evolution to make that stick… they have to define that realities norm is balancing on the edge of a razorblade between heaven and hell and never fall off.. the idea that all groups and individuals arbitrarily reached maximum in evolution and so the evolution has stopped in that case is a convenience in gaming your idiots to join you.
no two groups in any break down will score the same.
however, some groups will score similarly over time.
the point is that evolution is creating somes.
lots of somes for smarts… to test if smart is really needed. and if smart enslaves and smart kills and smart fails, then we go backto dumb animals, no point to existence and endless variation puntuated by disaster till the sun expands and swallows the whole thing up..
the left while crowing global warming and we must not be like the easter islanders, do not realize that this concept is not relegated only to trees, nuts, rats and stones… or the lack of foresight, as intelligence can get one in trouble just as much.
the future belongs to some of the somes….
the nature nurture argument is not valid..
its an invention of the left to confuse things to the point where they can claim anything, and accepting it is to take mental poison and negate your ability to think
you have an excel spreadsheet..
the data in it is nurture, the spreadsheet itself is nature
however, without nature being what it is, you cant put data into it, so the data is incidental to the construct. its whole existence is nature… including whether it can take your data or not, or just sit there without any data.
the data is nothing but temporary learning
(and in evolutionary terms, a test of fitness)
there is no such thing as the nature nurture argument except among elite idiots that dont get that the potential for the nurture has to exist for you to even ask the question of whether nurture has an effect.
but note… it has an effect because nature lets it
eat lead, and you get sick and die, as it has an effect
eat gold, and you have really expensive plops, but nothing happens to you
your nature does not see gold, and it does see lead
the data a spreadsheet contains depends on whether its nature lets it have it, or ignore it, or treats it correctly
the left had to ligitimize thta you are a product of reality imposing its oppressive will on you, and not responsible, unless you not on the left then you are responsible..
here is how funky it gets..
no one is born a certain way, your a product of your environment.. yes? and so if your environment changes your essence will cahnge too.
but what abot homosexuality? a quality that resists nurture? that breaks the rule? if you can impose homosexuality by society, then you can remove it too, no?
its nonsense which allows the political to define willy nilly which angle it will take… its use is to confuse till you accept the “truth” much like post modern philosophy which is so much nonsense peer review allowed computer generated nonsense into publication as valid!!! (and yet, is that passing the turing test? no, not really)
so, if your a white male, your a racist by birth as there is no nurture in you… and if your gay… but if your christian, the religion doesnt match your nature, its imposed by nuture (ignoring why you find that something better to be a part of than some other near equivalent or even what television shows you like)
the glass is nature, the water in it is nurture
the nurture fits the nature, not the nature fits the nurture as the left designates… which is why you cant teach a person of low IQ how to do brain surgery… their natures wont permit the nurture… and why if you have the capacity for brain surgery you can also do a lot of other things, because the capacity is larger.
Ponerology
A scientific discipline devoted to the study of evil. Its name stems from poneros, the Greek word for evil. It aims to apply the methodology and epistemology of science — especially drawing from fields such as biology, medicine and psychology — to:
– Discover the general laws of the genesis of evil, also known as ponerogenesis, at all levels of human systems — from the family, group and societal levels to the national and global levels

– Develop the proper categories and working vocabulary to technically name and explain the factors involved in that process
– Potentially develop ways to slow, prevent or neutralize ponerogenesis
I don’t expect there are many ponerologists around – those that can do, those that can’t, teach/theorize.
Besides, the neuromancers approach. There’s a lot of bullshit in the offing before the eschaton.
Writing of which, may we not presume the existence of evil proves the existence of good — and God. There is not anti-christ without Christ, there is not evil without good. Is it not, or hasn’t it been understood throughout theological history that evil incubates in the hot notion that man is the center of all things; and bad things happen when the notion becomes the praxis?
“What percentage of the population belongs to each group? I don’t know, but if I had to guess at the shape of a graph, it probably would be a normal distribution” neo
That would be my guess as well, the famous ‘bell curve’.
FWIW, some thoughts;
While it may appear to be facile semantics; in English the word EVIL is LIVE spelled backwards and arguably, so is their meaning. I do not suppose this to be merely accidental. To the degree that someone’s thoughts, words or actions oppose another person’s unalienable right to life and their pursuit of happiness (predicated upon the restriction that it does not hinder other’s rights) to that degree are those thoughts, words and actions evil.
Evil is not merely the absence of good. Evil is by its very nature cruel and cruelty derives pleasure in causing pain and suffering. It seeks to impose and maximize the suffering of its victims.
Evil is the distilled essence of the shadows (imperfections) that God’s light exposes. Which is I suspect, why God would only visit Adam and Eve in the garden during the evening, when shadows are least. If this is so, then along with free will, it explains the existence of evil in a dualistic universe of form.
You can talk about nature (genetics) and nurture (environment, culture, whatever). There’s a third thing, an x factor, that allows people to achieve great heights or depths that their ancestry and upbringing can’t account for. That’s choice. That’s the soul. It’s the power a person has to become kind, or evil, or even intelligent or strong by his own will.
The materialists see human nature as the product of genetics. The Marxists look at the structure of society. Both have an effect. So does decision. We rarely make a single choice that determines our path, but we make a thousand that develop in us the ability to stand up for what’s right. The Greeks called it virtue. So do the Christians. The Greeks saw it as natural, the Christians as both natural and supernatural. We practice virtue – literally practice it, train ourselves in it.
That ability to choose good and evil is what elevates us above the animals. That is what we call human nature, and it’s the thing that we value, the thing that gives a person worth. The West at its best recognizes that all humans have worth, and that society requires that recognition. Our moral code is based on that recognition. The things we know – know – are that it’s better to be alive than dead, better to be free than enslaved, are the things that stem from our understanding that humans have the capacity for good or evil. We know them because we see them inside ourselves. We can lie to ourselves that we are only the product of heredity, or environment, or some mix thereof, but if we fail to recognize the soul, we will fail to articulate a vision of society befitting humans.
Nick you are brilliant. Thank you for your wonderful, insightful comment.
Yes, thank you for that, Nick.
It’s one of those things, that if and when the crunch comes, you really can’t know beforehand who will do the right and moral thing.
Only when it comes right down to it – and then we shall know for certain.
See: The Milgram Experiment. There are those who will gladly, under color of authority, do their worst to a fellow human being, the ‘just following orders’ crowd. Are they ‘scorpions’, doing what is simply their nature? Or are they products of their culture/environment? Who cares? Whatever the reason, the violence perpetrated and the pain inflicted are still the same.
My gut feeling is that there are more of those who would gladly/gleefully/willingly inflict harm under color of authority than those who would not.
You had better obey the police or else. That was basically the sum total ethical rationale people used to justify civic law and order.
That’s kind of pathetic, really. And it’s inefficient to the point of failure.
Do citizens obey the police and hope the orders from the police are their own thoughts and judgment? What happens when the police are themselves afraid of their Authority and are only giving orders to the citizens because the police are afraid of the citizens and the authority of government organizations? It’ll be one big fear chain going straight up. That is orderly all right, but not quite the lawful obedience people normally consider righteous.
So when the police are merely automatons obeying orders to allow looters and rioters “space to destroy”, and the citizens are told by their fellows to “obey the police or else”, what exactly becomes the reason or rationale for order in society? If it is might makes right, then that has its own justice but it isn’t what has been imposed here or in American cities.
When a person takes an oath to defend something, like his own civilization, his own Human Race, or his culture/family, that person needs integrity, moral courage, strength of will if nothing else, and also the ability to sustain his words with action. That person cannot be afraid of “authority” to the point of bending knee and Obeying Authority’s orders. That person cannot be so afraid of saving his own hide that he obeys the orders of his superiors to watch on as crime and evil runs rampant in the streets.
A defender of humanity is not allowed to point his guns at the citizens, the body of the entity they defend. An immune system that begins dismantling the body and allowing alien invaders to destroy the organs of society, is a virus like HIV. It has no relation to healthy systems of congress.
Human hierarchies have been crafted since ancient times to deal with the problems that erupt due to having a hierarchy in the first place. The solution sets have been lost or purposefully destroyed, however.
There will always be people in need of a shepherd and the power of a leader is primarily the result of people in need of a sheep begging, borrowing, or sacrificing some valuable resource and giving it to the “Fuhrer”, the Supreme Leader. Evil would like to fill that gap since it is easier than coercing each and every individual to toe the line. It is far better to use an organization or a hierarchy o do so, via allowing the sheep to enforce their own prison and plantation system. The justification is often that we must band together or else this “foreign enemy” will gut us. Often times evil leaders are the ones responsible for the creation of that “foreign enemy”. When foreigners don’t exist, then “domestic enemies” are created out of thin air, out of the opponents of evil or the Fuhrer.
It may appear that people who obey evil orders are letting things slide in order to make compromises to maintain public order and peace. It may appear so to ignorant eyes and the eyes of the inexperienced. It may appear that police ignoring rioters and protecting their own paychecks, will continue the public order, by safeguarding the police forces. That is what it appears like. In reality, anyone who obeys the orders of evil merely puts another stake in their society, their hierarchy. Evil hierarchies, because they do not truly protect or maintain the public body of their citizens or human resources, will eventually run out of those resources. Sooner or later, even the power of an evil hierarchy dries up, and they are left with burning children and babies to make up for the difference in their power. Not even retarded sheep will be able to trust the shepherd when the shepherd is goring, splitting, and executing baby sheep in front of the herd, and then eating the sheeples. Animals and humans are much alike in this mammalian custom of attempting to avoid being eaten or killed. Even Leftist zombies have that much instinct left, at least.
In human hierarchies, there are certain roles to be filled. The Protector or Guardian, aka warrior or soldier, is a well known archetype. They are generally elevated due to their martial mastery, physical prowess, and capability to withstand personal mental and physical anguish. The titles, wealth, and position is the mantle they wear to battle, not what makes them the Guardian or the Warrior.
The Politician handles diplomacy with foreigners as well as unified public policy and strategy. They often worked hand in hand with the Guardian. The Politician handles the crazy unrest of various families, clans, and tribes in the group. The Guardian is thus left free to concentrate all firepower on real enemies. The Guardian also serves as a military stick or threat to the enemies of the Politician, presenting them an alternative view of what happens when they don’t go along to get along.
The Priest takes care of people’s superstitions, guilt, or unspoken worries. Actions in human hierarchies tend to produce psychosis or instability, if those actions are somehow anti survival for the group. Even hoarding something as simple as food in times of famine, while allowing the children of your fellows to starve, will produce guilt, and thus anger, fear, rage at everyone and anyone. In an unstable food situation, uncontrollable emotions will merely create more friction. The Priest has served the archetype role of enforcer of public conscience, honesty, and virtue. For those that that know not the righteous road, they shall be led to it, and if needed, beaten on the head until they get to it.
The Wolf, as is popularly known in various tales modern or ancient, is the Other, the feral force that consumes individuals or lone separated members of the herd/pack. It is the natural enemy or predator of the sheep, or even of the shepherd and the sheepdog defenders. The defense is in depth, with an outer ring of individuals (American frontiersmen) doing the individual scouting and sniping, overlayed with sheepdogs that perform monitoring of the sheep (the police), as well as the personal attendants of the shepherd that anticipate the shepherd’s orders (community leaders).
Has anyone ever wondered what happens when the Wolf sheds its skin and takes on the mantle of, not the Sheep, but the Shepherd? What happens when all your Guardians, Politicians, and Priests are merely the Wolves in disguise?
Isn’t that an interesting hypothetical scenario for human hierarchical necessities.
Ymarsaker,
IMO an excellent observation. This is the medical metaphor to the legal point that by turning on its people, a government violates (and thus voids) the legal contract it has established with its people.
In past societies, revolution was simply credited to the acts of an incompetent or malevolent king/queen. In our society, in which the govt gets its power from a contract with its people, dissent and discontent grows from a different motive and can have a different result. The authorities are not obligated to defend any divine right to rule and can, themselves, recognize that the social contract has been voided. Thus, undermining or even abolishing their own sense of their own authority.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term. Perhaps this is but the next act in the great and unique American social experiment of contractual governance.
… In past societies, revolution was simply credited to the acts of an incompetent or malevolent king/queen. In our society, in which the govt gets its power from a contract with its people, dissent and discontent grows from a different motive and can have a different result…
Blame the voters?
“Blame the voters?”
Let’s remember that the concept of a universal one-person one vote is a relatively recent development. Even at the founding of this country, a voter had to be a landholder.
There is still something to be said for requiring some skin in the game.
I blame the voters ….
When the world declares Jews, Republicans??
In Rare Remarks