That would make the list go: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kissinger. With the difference that the US has been a terrorist state for over a hundred years, while the other names on the list have been individuals while Kissingers was part of a greater evil.
The ‘Behind the Bastards’ 6 part series on him was fucking brilliant, well worth a listen. Also, if BtB has to do a 6 part series to cover all the fucked up shit you did…? You’re one of histories greatest monsters…
You think because the names you listed were leaders of their countries doesn’t make them part of a greater evil? No one person commits atrocities alone; there must be some backing.
One single name doesn’t get to make decisions… There must be a greater body at play. There has to be support of some sort, otherwise the people would have just said no, and killed that person.
I’d rather not have an internet argument, but I’ll give you a pointer that you can use to google for more information of the issue is of actual interest to you:
Mao, Stalin and Hitler were tyrants that forced their way to leadership and killed everyone who opposed them. Kissinger was the advisor of a terrorist government that existed long before him and will continue to exist.
“just said no, and killed that person” is a naive Disney fantasy. In actual reality people that “just say no” get vanished, tortured and killed. And their neighbours suddenly turn reaaally quiet after that. However, there is always a certain joint guitl and complicity, I agree with that. And it weighs especially heavy if “the people” are very free to protest their nation’s terrorism but don’t do so.
There is a big difference between a single dictator being a plague upon the world for the 10-50 years he’s in power, and an nation with constently changing leadership being a permanent plague upon this world for 100+ years.
That’s the reason why Kissinger sticks out of the list: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kissinger*.
I agree with your overall thesis but your characterizations of the three tyrants are casually backwards.
Mao was a leader of a militant group first. He won political power in that group and that group won a large following of people over several decades. His status as tyrant emerges from that history and cultivated in a desperate militaristic role which is already predisposed to authoritarian rule.
Hitler was similar, his authotarianism, is on display much earlier in the process, and part of his charismatic attraction. It was clear early on that Hitler was going to mow down anyone in his way. Still, he needed to acquire popular and then political power. He leveraged existing sentiment and thuggish groups such as the Freikorp.
Stalin was just a bureaucrat.
Just kidding. I know very little of Stalin’s rise to power except that it was internal to a party that already had seized power.
That’s true but group think requires a strong leader with a vision and a willingness to direct the group towards his own goals vice the best interests of the people. So I believe there’s an argument to be made for targeting and removing specific people from power to prevent atrocities from happening. Group think is a psychological concept, so here’s some more information about it. There are other factors involved, so removing one person still might not be effective.
Group Think
Thinking in which maintaining group cohesion and solidarity is more important than considering facts in a realistic manner
Occurs when:
Group members are highly cohesive
Group member are isolated from contrary opinions
Group is lead by a biased leader who make their wishes known
Stress caused by external factors, especially time constraints
Signs of Group Think
Overestimating group’s skills & wisdom
Biased perceptions and evaluations of other groups and people outside of their group
My point wasn’t that single people can’t be bad, or do bad things, but ultimately to perform terrible acts at scale it requires buy-in from other people. Without support, whether it be through fear, coercion, or otherwise, it’s nothing more than intrusive thoughts.
Hitler was a bad dude but it took a concerted effort by who knows how many people in order to make the sick stuff that happened a reality.
All the names he listed were indeed bad dudes, but I feel saying Kissinger stands out because he had the support of the government while the others just killed millions by themselves is not a fair assessment of what transpired.
I agree with the sentiment in context of these “next level” atrocities, for lack of better way to phrase it.
But I disagree with “No one person commits atrocities alone; there must be some backing”. Plenty of atrocities have happened because one person decided to be a dickhead
Oh yeah, geopolitical is probably a better way to phrase it than “next level”.
That I agree with. I just felt like saying “nobody commits atrocities alone” removes some blame from some monsters out there that have done terrible shit.
Oh absolutely. That’s why I made a point to qualify it like that. Atrocities can go from a mass shooting carried out by one person to a genocide carried out by an entire government.
That would make the list go: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kissinger. With the difference that the US has been a terrorist state for over a hundred years, while the other names on the list have been individuals while Kissingers was part of a greater evil.
The ‘Behind the Bastards’ 6 part series on him was fucking brilliant, well worth a listen. Also, if BtB has to do a 6 part series to cover all the fucked up shit you did…? You’re one of histories greatest monsters…
Robert also did six parts on McMahon which I thought was… weird
Ed McMahon?
Vince
Jim?
Bones?
You think because the names you listed were leaders of their countries doesn’t make them part of a greater evil? No one person commits atrocities alone; there must be some backing.
One single name doesn’t get to make decisions… There must be a greater body at play. There has to be support of some sort, otherwise the people would have just said no, and killed that person.
I’d rather not have an internet argument, but I’ll give you a pointer that you can use to google for more information of the issue is of actual interest to you:
Mao, Stalin and Hitler were tyrants that forced their way to leadership and killed everyone who opposed them. Kissinger was the advisor of a terrorist government that existed long before him and will continue to exist.
“just said no, and killed that person” is a naive Disney fantasy. In actual reality people that “just say no” get vanished, tortured and killed. And their neighbours suddenly turn reaaally quiet after that. However, there is always a certain joint guitl and complicity, I agree with that. And it weighs especially heavy if “the people” are very free to protest their nation’s terrorism but don’t do so.
There is a big difference between a single dictator being a plague upon the world for the 10-50 years he’s in power, and an nation with constently changing leadership being a permanent plague upon this world for 100+ years.
That’s the reason why Kissinger sticks out of the list: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Kissinger*.
I agree with your overall thesis but your characterizations of the three tyrants are casually backwards.
Mao was a leader of a militant group first. He won political power in that group and that group won a large following of people over several decades. His status as tyrant emerges from that history and cultivated in a desperate militaristic role which is already predisposed to authoritarian rule.
Hitler was similar, his authotarianism, is on display much earlier in the process, and part of his charismatic attraction. It was clear early on that Hitler was going to mow down anyone in his way. Still, he needed to acquire popular and then political power. He leveraged existing sentiment and thuggish groups such as the Freikorp.
Stalin was just a bureaucrat.
Just kidding. I know very little of Stalin’s rise to power except that it was internal to a party that already had seized power.
Great analysis thanks
That’s true but group think requires a strong leader with a vision and a willingness to direct the group towards his own goals vice the best interests of the people. So I believe there’s an argument to be made for targeting and removing specific people from power to prevent atrocities from happening. Group think is a psychological concept, so here’s some more information about it. There are other factors involved, so removing one person still might not be effective.
Group Think
Occurs when:
Signs of Group Think
My point wasn’t that single people can’t be bad, or do bad things, but ultimately to perform terrible acts at scale it requires buy-in from other people. Without support, whether it be through fear, coercion, or otherwise, it’s nothing more than intrusive thoughts.
Hitler was a bad dude but it took a concerted effort by who knows how many people in order to make the sick stuff that happened a reality.
All the names he listed were indeed bad dudes, but I feel saying Kissinger stands out because he had the support of the government while the others just killed millions by themselves is not a fair assessment of what transpired.
I agree with the sentiment in context of these “next level” atrocities, for lack of better way to phrase it.
But I disagree with “No one person commits atrocities alone; there must be some backing”. Plenty of atrocities have happened because one person decided to be a dickhead
I actually can’t think of one on a geopolitical scale. There’s always some other people involved.
Oh yeah, geopolitical is probably a better way to phrase it than “next level”.
That I agree with. I just felt like saying “nobody commits atrocities alone” removes some blame from some monsters out there that have done terrible shit.
Oh absolutely. That’s why I made a point to qualify it like that. Atrocities can go from a mass shooting carried out by one person to a genocide carried out by an entire government.
Also Pol Pot of Cambodia.
Which can be blamed on… Kissinger!
Bingo!