neither upvoted nor downvoted, but this would benefit from a TL;DR or thesis statement, and would benefit a LOT from some description of whether you're describing a thing you think is real/objective, or describing a framework/belief system that some sub-group uses for some explanations/decisions.
Thank you for your suggestion! I will promptly add a summary no longer than three sentences at the bottom of this post. As for my opinions on the reality of the system, I am attempting to create a system that is useful in that it may be used to contend with individuals committing harmful acts.
Think of an evil person, the vilest sort of person you can imagine. Who did you think of? A serial killer, a hated politician, your micromanaging boss? Speaking in a more serious manner, you'd probably answer with some vitriolic terrorist or genocidal dictator, most likely Hitler. The conventional idea of evil holds that an evil person is someone who kills or otherwise significantly harms large amounts of people, usually for personal enjoyment or some other hedonistic purpose. While this idea is largely accurate, it overlooks an uncomfortable but significant motivation for such acts: Justice.
Scroll to bottom for summary.
Types of Evil
Evil acts, and the people who commit them, may be sorted into into three general categories: Hedonistic or "true" evil, instrumental evil, and righteous evil. For the purposes of this post, actions will only be considered evil if the harm caused by the action is known to the actor and the action is willingly taken regardless. The first, hedonistic evil, applies when the actor harms people simply because they enjoy it. A minor example is "power-tripping": Complicating the lives of one's employees, children, and others financially or socially under your control to establish dominance, despite the widely-known ineffectiveness[1] of heavy-handed leadership. However, when considering harm beyond strained relationships, this sort of evil is relatively rare; those who enjoy harming others to an extreme degree often suffer from other severe mental and social difficulties that prevent them from attaining significant power. Such is not to say that they are incapable of ruining the lives of individuals, but they rarely attain enough power to significantly harm more than a few dozen. Despite the relative rarity of true evil, it tends to be the most widely acknowledged form of it[2], especially when considering the worst crimes and offenses.
The second sort of evil, instrumental evil, occurs when the actor harms people in pursuit of some other goal[3], usually monetary gain. Think of the classic leftist's villain, an executive who underpays his employees, carelessly pollutes, and bribes politicians for profit. A tamer example includes (probably) you among other middle- and upper-middle class first-worlders who buy cheap clothing that was more likely than not made in a sweatshop when other, more expensive options are available. Such people do not enjoy immoral behavior, and may in fact squirm a little when reminded of it (I know I did), but ultimately decide that their monetary desires, career ambitions, and other pursuits are more worthwhile than being perfectly ethical. Instrumental evil is generally acknowledged, particularly by young or progressive people and entities, but not as widely as true evil. It is also quite common; most, if not all, living humans exhibit instrumental evil behaviors on a small scale, and many causing harm on a large scale do so for this reason.
The final kind of evil, righteous evil, paradoxically describes acts in which the actor believed they were doing something righteous, beneficial, or good. The most prominent tropes of this sort from media are tree-hugging environmental terrorists, oppressed women and minorities who react with violence, and Thanos. These characters are almost always presented in a somewhat sympathetic manner, if not outright justified. It helps that the viewpoints of these characters happen to be somewhat similar to that of the consumers. The views of those indulging in righteous evil regarding their actions run the gambit, encompassing vengeful joy at the suffering of perceived oppressors and malcontents, discomfort with paired with perceived necessity of harm, cognitive dissonance and purposeful ignorance, and the possibility of no feelings at all; what connects them is their ultimate motivation of doing good and helping people. Righteous evil is not often acknowledged nor cited as a primary motivation for evil; however, as will be demonstrated in the following piece, it is the motivator of many of the most evil actors and actions.
A Tale of Three Racists
To further distinguish these three types of evil, I will explain the conduct of three influential segregationists during the Jim Crow era in America. Racism, particularly institutional racism, is one of the phenomena most often ascribed to pure evil, with sentiments that racists are hateful people who implement racist policies because they enjoy seeing minorities suffer being quite common, and not at all unreasonable, given the shockingly vile rhetoric of the time. However, the motivation of sadism was not the only, or even the most common, motivation for prominent segregationists of the time. In no way do I intend to diminish the harm caused by segregation and its proponents, nor do I intend to excuse their actions; I only hope to differentiate their motivations.
The first segregationist, Senator James Eastland of Mississippi, was notable for using his position within the Senate to prevent bills pertaining to civil rights from passing. Eastland, known as "the Chairman", rendered his committee the "graveyard of civil rights legislation" by blocking "more than one hundred civil rights measures"[4]. Eastland was evidently a staunch racist; in a speech to the Senate, he declared, "racial separation was the correct, self-evident" which "promotes racial harmony"[5]. He later praised the Rhodesian regime as a model of the racial harmony which he desired, but complained that his accommodations "allow[ed] stinking n___rs into such a fine hotel". In 1978, long after segregation was politically poisonous, he briefly tried to gain the support of African-Americans, but declared that he did not regret and would not change his approach to civil rights.
The second segregationist, Alabama Governor George Wallace, is remembered for his famous declaration, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!"[6], as well as his physically blocking the doors of the University of Alabama to prevent the first African-American students from attending. It is likely that Wallace only used segregation as a means to advance his political career; after a failed gubernatorial campaign in which he focused upon infrastructure and won the support of the NAACP, he privately complained, "I was out-n___red, and I will never be out-n___red again." Indeed, after segregation ceased to be a winning political position, Wallace attempted to distance himself from his prior positions and win the favor of the African-American community; in fact, both the students who he attempted to block later forgave him.
The final segregationist, Birmingham Commissioner of Public Safety Bull Connor, is best known for attacking protesters, most famously the children participating in the Children's March, by spraying them with fire hoses and sending attack dogs after them. He also allowed Klu Klux Klan members and other such malcontents to attack the Freedom Rider protesters, failing to send police to fend off the attackers. In fact, he appeared to support the mob, declaring afterwards, "As I have said on numerous occasions, we are not going to stand for this in Birmingham."[7] Due to the ill-repute and condemnation that Connor's policies attracted, he was removed from the post, and died in the early 1970s. Similar to Eastland, he never apologized for his actions during that period.
In regards to their motivations, Eastland was likely acting upon righteous evil; he truly believed segregation would lead to a more peaceful society, and remained committed to what he believed to be a righteous cause even after it failed to serve his interest. In contrast, Wallace acted upon instrumental evil, only becoming a segregationist once it served his interests, and ceasing to support it when it no longer attracted voters. Connor is more difficult to classify; at first glance, the brutality and violence that protesters were subject to suggest that he acted upon pure evil, but he was ultimately under the delusion that sending attack dogs after children was protecting the sovereignty of his city. There is no evidence that actively enjoyed brutalizing protesters and wanted African-Americans to suffer[8], placing him solidly as an agent of righteous evil. Such reveals the utility of this classification system; it is not an attempt to categorize the magnitude or impact of various crimes nor to fit the near-infinite complexities of human thought and emotion into neat little boxes, but away to evaluate the most effective method for addressing evil. Understanding the motivations of people like Eastland, Wallace, and Connor is essential for combating the harm they inflict; individuals motivated by righteous evil may be convinced, after much effort, that they are wrong, while individuals motivated by instrumental evil may simply be dissuaded by incentives against evil behavior[9].
Evil People and Their Motivations
While there is no definitive ranking or classification system for evil people, there exists a general consensus of what sorts of actions are evil, and why malcontents perform them. To get a general idea of such groups, I looked at a variety of "most evil people of all time" lists[10] and grouped them together based upon their actions and role in the society where they operated. I also added a few personal selections, which will be distinguished by an asterisk (*). This section is the longest in the piece; if you are willing to accept my conclusions, you may skip to the summary.
The dictators, despots, and conquerors of history are consistently considered to be the most evil people to live. Adolf Hitler is ranked as the most evil person across every list I checked[11], with other fascist and communist dictators just behind him. However, Hitler clearly believed he was not only a good person, but a savior of Germany. This is in no way intended to be a defense of Hitler, nor an excuse for his actions; he was hateful and deranged, and his megalomania led to the deaths of eleven million people in industrialized slaughter. (I could further expound on the evils of the Holocaust and the Nazi ideology, but we all hopefully understand that Hitler was a vile man whose atrocities have no excuse, so I will stop here.) To understand how such lunatics justify themselves, it is necessary to explain their delusions. Hitler's particular delusion was that Germany was the victim of a vast Jewish conspiracy to take over the world, as well as the burdens of "inferior people"[12]; in his mind, such justified the massacre of these perceived oppressors. Per contemporary sources, Hitler was extremely zealous, believing even in his last days that fate or a higher power had ordained him.[13] His commitment to vegetarianism for the purposes of animal welfare[14] also indicates that he attempted to be a somewhat ethical person.
Other notorious dictators share a similar pattern, albeit among different ideological lines. Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Zedong all expounded upon their personal versions of communism, which they believed would lead to some sort of utopia. With these visions, Stalin justified the Holodomor and the purges to solidify Soviet influence, Pol Pot killed anyone thought to have intellectual or foreign traits (such as wearing glasses or speaking more than one language) in pursuit of a return to agrarian life, and Mao instantiated the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward in order to industrialize and modernize China. There is no indication that any of these three were insincere in their idealist beliefs, nor that these atrocities were committed entirely for personal gain or enjoyment. Saddam Hussein, Hibatullah Akhundzada*, and other theocrats enforce Sharia law because they believe its observance is the only protection from eternal damnation and torment; there is no indication that the Taliban and ISIS only use Islam as a political prop. (Saddam Hussein invoked Islamic themes and imagery to legitimize his regime, but there is no evidence that he was not a Muslim himself.) Hideki Tojo and Benito Mussolini were ardent believer in fascism and the superiority of their respective nations. Many ancient tyrants, such as Genghis Khan and Ivan the Terrible, believed they had a divine right to rule and that their violent enforcement would bring peace.
Of the dictators consistently recognized as the most evil in history, the vast majority are motivated by ideology, believing their evil actions are ultimately beneficial for their population; accordingly, one may conclude that they are motivated by righteousness, not sadism or power-lust. Two exceptions to this pattern are Idi Amin and the Kim lineage, neither of whom display any moral commitment other than the advancement and solidification of their own regime.
Consistently tagging just behind the tyrants are their followers, distinguished by prominence, zeal, or extreme conduct. Unsurprisingly, the majority of this groups consists of Nazis, due to the notoriety of the regime and extensive documentation following the Nuremberg Trials. Some followers, most notably Joseph Goebbels, were just as rabidly ideological, if not more so, than the head of the regime they served. However, many of them, while they may have agreed with the delusions of their leader, primarily took advantage of the situation as Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele did. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum[15] notes that, "[o]ne colleague recalled Mengele commenting that it would be a crime not to take advantage of the opportunities for human experimentation at Auschwitz-Birkenau." The motivations of high-ranking followers of dictators may then be split between righteous and instrumental evil.
What differentiates the politicians from the tyrants is that they gained and held power through entirely democratic means, and were often symptoms of wider societal issues. Regardless, the politicians to gain the distinction of particular evil contributed significantly to or prolonged their particular social ills. Many of these politicians carried out the will of a misguided populace, and many held the same views as that populace. US President Andrew Jackson, a slave trader responsible for the Indian Removal Act, is the best example of such. Jackson was far from a despot in many respects, and is in fact credited with expanding democracy beyond wealthy elites[16] and breaking down structures of "concentrated economic power", most notably the national banks. Jackson believed that his actions were just; by defying the Supreme Court, furthering the genocide of the Native Americans, and promoting the institution of slavery (though not a secessionist), he was carrying out the will of the American people, and his strengthening of the power of the executive branch was necessary step in doing so. Jackson did indeed represent the views of a significant contingent of Americans, and very likely held similar views himself; accordingly, he'd be an example of righteous evil.
Of course, there are many opportunists in politics as well. The most corrupt US administration is generally agreed to be that of President Warren G. Harding and his cabinet, known as the Ohio Gang, were embroiled in a great number of scandals; the most famous of these was the Teapot Dome scandal, in which cabinet members allowed corporations to drill into federal oil reserves for a bribe, but other incidents (such as the director of the Veteran's Bureau splitting contracts for WWI veteran's hospitals between two conspirators and inflating building costs for profit as well as the Attorney General and one of Harding's aides accepting bribes to protect or ignore alcohol bootleggers) received attention as well. A more flagrant but less influential example is New York's Boss Tweed*, who took advantage of the impoverished Irish immigrant community and used his political power to embezzle up to five billion dollars into today's money.[17] Although I will not list current examples for fear of the comment section devolving into the typical social media political slop, there are plenty of examples of corruption and opportunistic behavior in the modern political landscape. Politicians, therefore, can comfortably be split between righteous and instrumental evil.
Despite the ubiquity of the exploitative and greedy businessman trope, exploitative and greedy businessmen ranked surprisingly low on the list of evil people. Regardless, I will briefly address them as a class due to their prominence in the modern political landscape and psyche. King Leopold II of Belgium (the only such character to make the list) acquired the Congo under a private organization and brutally enslaved the Congolese for the purpose of collecting rubber, leading to between one to ten million deaths. The most memorable atrocity of the Belgian Congo, that of the Congolese's hands being cut off, arose from a cost-cutting measure in which soldiers were to account for dead men by cutting off their right hand, intended to save bullets. Other prominent examples of this sort follow a similar pattern. The robber barons of the Gilded Age* underpaid and mistreated their employees, consolidated vast monopolies using underhanded tactics, and corrupted the government in pursuit of great wealth. Environmental disasters such as the Bhopal gas disaster and the BP oil spill are caused by corporations cutting corners to save money on safety measures. Many on this forum believe that Sam Altman* and his ilk are placing the humanity at risk of significant economic disruption and even extinction due to their profit-motivated failure to slow or pause AI development. In any case, these individuals are motivated almost purely by profit; while many of these individuals participated in philanthropy, it is generally acknowledged that most did so in order to whitewash their image, display their wealth, or assuage religious guilt. Accordingly, the motivation of the tycoons is almost purely instrumental evil.
Although they have significantly reduced influence over the direction of society than the above four groups, the sudden and extreme violence inflicted by these individuals and groups is significant enough to imprint in the public psyche. In one poll, Osama Bin Laden was ranked higher than Joseph Goebbels; in another, Timothy McVeigh sat between Vlad the Impaler and war criminal Slobodan Milosevic[18]. The overwhelming majority of terrorists are ideologues; of the previously mentioned terrorists, Bin Laden (and other religiously motivated terrorists) killed to avenge perceived harm towards and ultimately advance his religion, which he (and other religiously motivated terrorists) believed to be the morally just path to utopia and perfection, while McVeigh hoped to incite revolution against the federal government, which he believed to be despotic. Even the most vitriolic terrorists, such as Elliot Rodger, believed their crimes would right perceived wrongs, punish perceived oppressors, and potentially lead to a better world - in Rodger's case, he sought to punish women for their refusal to have sex with him, and hoped to inspire a world in which all women were either enslaved or eradicated. While a few massacres were orchestrated by sadists (Adam Lanza, perpetrator of the Sandy Hook shooting, suffered from severe mental deficits and was obsessed with mass killings), the vast majority of terrorists[19] are motivated by righteous evil, so convinced by their vision of utopia that they are willing to kill.
Serial killers, defined here as individuals who murdered two or more people on separate occasions, received very outsized influence relative to the people they affected. In one poll, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and Richard Ramirez ranked above Adolf Eichmann; in another, Jeffrey Dahmer ranked above Benito Mussolini. One may conclude that the sheer depravity of their crimes, as well as their relative comprehensibility, rather than scale, which enables their recognition; @So8res writes a great post related to this. Half of all serial killers (49.8%), and all of the serial killers considered evil enough to rank on the lists, are motivated by pleasure or impulse, while the majority of the remainder (39.3%) kill for financial or gang-related reasons[20]. Because this piece focuses upon those who are considered the most evil, rather than actual crimes, serial killers will generally be considered to be pure evil (the only group to receive this distinction) with a few instrumental evil.
Similar to serial killers, cult leaders and leaders of criminal organizations featured relatively high given the scope of their crimes; Jim Jones and Charles Manson each ranked within the top ten of one poll and the top twenty of another. The former is responsible for the Jonestown massacre, in which nearly one thousand people living in his Jonestown compound drank, or were forced to drink, Flavor-Aid laced with cyanide, while the latter is known for murdering nine people with his followers. Jones had strong moral impulses, being responsible in part for the racial integration of Indianapolis and forming his compound in hopes of creating a socialist utopia. Manson, by contrast, seemed to be solely focused on power; a schizophrenic, he claimed that, "Black people would rise up and kill the entire White population except for Manson and his followers, but they were not intelligent enough to survive on their own... and so they would serve Manson as their 'master[21]'." Cults leaders also take advantage of their followers financially; although exact figures are unknown, Keith Raniere* is believed to have made millions from his NXIVM cult, which followed the model of a multi-level marketing scheme. Despite vastly different motivations, Jones, Manson, and Raniere all sexually abused members of their congregation for no reason other than personal pleasure. Evidently, gathering large amounts of dedicated followers is useful for most any purpose, but such followers almost inevitably suffer abuse regardless of the cult leader's original intentions. Accordingly, cult leaders may be split between righteous evil, instrumental evil, and pure evil, with extra emphasis given to pure evil given the abuses perpetrated by cult leaders once they gain power.
In contrast, gang leaders are almost entirely motivated by money. Leaders of notorious gangs such as Al Capone and Pablo Escobar smuggled alcohol and drugs, respectively, for a profit and nothing more. A few enjoy the commissioning of evil acts themselves, and these are ranked higher; Jeffery Epstein, leader of a sex trafficking ring, profited immensely from the relationships he had with rich and powerful individuals, but was evidently quite perverted himself. Gang leaders may therefore be said to be instrumentally evil in general, with occasional pure evil.
Of the actors with the greatest societal influence - dictators and their high-ranking followers, politicians, and wealthy businessmen - righteous evil, and to a lesser extent, instrumental evil, were the primary motivations. With few exceptions, the greatest atrocities were committed by people who were convinced they were doing the right thing. Actors with less influence, for whom the magnitude and shocking nature of their crimes, rather than the scale, earned their place on this list, are more evenly split. Terrorists, the worst of these individuals, operated almost purely due to righteous evil. In fact, the only group for which pure evil is a consistent motivation is that of serial killers, who have the least influence and impact. Overall, those considered to be the most evil are motivated by righteous and instrumental evil.
Implications
If righteous evil is such a common motivator, particularly for the most heinous atrocities, and pure evil is so rare, why is the idea of pure evil so attractive, and why are the works of righteous evil so often ascribed to pure evil? An easy answer is that, to ascribe any morality to history's worst monsters or to explain their actions in the context of their worldviews, may be taken as an excuse for their behavior, or even support for their crimes. I myself was quite uncomfortable writing that Hitler believed himself to be an ethical person, even after acknowledging the falsity of his delusions and the harm he caused. However, if such social conventions were the only thing preventing common acknowledgement of righteous evil, I wouldn't be writing this; in today's irreverent era, we'd have broken them alongside the social conventions upholding politeness, deference to authority, and respectful discussion of politics and religion. Unfortunately, I suspect the true reason lies closer to human nature. It is easy to say, "I would never harm so many people for any amount of wealth or comfort!", and even easier to proclaim, "Only a very sick individual could enjoy harming others"; that is, we (the majority of us, at least) know that we do not enjoy hurting people for fun, and it doesn't take much self-reflection to place limits on the levels of harm we'd cause or enable for material gain.
However, it is difficult to acknowledge that our views of reality may be distorted, that there is no earthly way to determine the correctness of our morals, that it is possible for anyone, including ourselves, to be monsters. If we accept that history's vilest men were indeed human in the same way we are, that there is not some inherent deficit which lends one to evil which we have been lucky enough to avoid, then we accept that we are all capable of evil as well. The cautionary tale of Nazi Germany should have made this evident; unless you believe that Germans are genetically predisposed to fascism, the rise of Hitler carries the uneasy lesson that, were a similar set of historical circumstances applied to you and your community, you or the people you love may be consumed by similar ideologies.
It is not enough to simply take a stance on nothing, claim all violence and social change is immoral and ignore the world around you. At best, you wait for others to build a better world for you; at worst, you sit idly by as tangible harm is inflicted on those closest to you. This is not to say that you must take a hardline stance on everything, all the time - quite the opposite, actually - but blanket condemnation is not a choice free of consequence. At times, it is imperative to act as to prevent further harm; murderers must be jailed, despots must be toppled, and corrupt politicians removed. Although we don't have to personally contribute to every effort, we should at least acknowledge that occasional use of force is necessary for the maintenance of a stable and free society.
So, how can we tell if we are immoral? How can we render ourselves immune to evil? Why did I write this at all? The unfortunate answer to these questions is that I do not know, and to my knowledge, no mere man knows either[22]. The best I can do is to suggest that one seriously evaluate all perspectives at least once, even the seemingly bizarre, to assume those around you hold the best intentions until proven otherwise, to avoid generalizing any group of human beings, particularly based upon immutable characteristics, to evaluate yourself for bias, and to avoid feeling animosity or hatred towards anybody.
Summary: Individuals who act in ways that are harmful can be categorized into three groups based upon their motivation: Pure evil, or causing harm for personal enjoyment, instrumental evil, or causing harm to some other selfish end, and righteous evil, or causing harm in hopes of benefiting society. Many of history's most evil people are motivated by righteous evil, contrary to popular opinion, which asserts that pure evil is a primary motivation due to reluctance to accept that anyone could be delusional, immoral, or harmful.
I have tried my best to accurately represent historical fact, human nature, and popular opinion, and have listed all the sources I have used in the footnotes. If I, or one of my sources, is inaccurate or has mischaracterized something, please inform me in the comments. Even if my conclusions have been unsatisfactory, I hope this piece has been informative or at least entertaining.
From a cursory search online: Toxic Micromanagement in the Workplace: Its Impact on Employee Productivity, Trust, and Innovation. Quicker Read: The Power of Trust and Avoiding Micromanagement
Unfortunately, I was not able to find any data supporting this; while there are many surveys regarding what is evil or immoral, I could not find any regarding the motivations of wrongdoers. I have come to this conclusion based on my personal experiences, conversations with those around me, what people on social media express, and the sorts of villains that populate our media, but it could also be argued that instrumental evil is just as widely acknowledged. Common sentiments expressing true evil include: "They're of the devil", "They hate us and everything we stand for", and "They enjoy watching us suffer".
https://networkcontagion.us/reports/4-7-25-ncri-assassination-culture-brief/
The line between instrumental evil and pure evil may be quite thin, in that one may claim someone who commits evil acts in pursuit of personal pleasure is instrumentally evil because they used that evil act to further their own happiness, or that someone who commits evil acts in pursuit of money is pure evil because they enjoy the spoils. The distinguishing feature between these motivations lies in how the actor derives pleasure from their acts; an actor motivated by instrumental evil enjoys some beneficial reward, such as money, career advancement, or social capital, and would not commit evil acts if there were a more convenient route to obtaining these same rewards, while an actor motivated by pure evil enjoys the act itself or some direct derivative of it. The motivation of power is also difficult to categorize; in this piece, desiring power in pursuit of security and personal comfort will be considered instrumental evil, while desiring power itself will be considered pure evil.
Source: The Mississippi Encyclopedia
Source: Wikipedia
This, and other George Wallace quotes, are sourced from PBS.
Source: Wikipedia
If you can find some, please let me know; I wanted badly to find an antagonist of the Jim Crow period who had significant institutional power and was explicitly sadistic, but I could not find any.
It poses an interesting question: Who is worse, Eastland, who believed a cause as vile as segregation was virtuous, or Wallace, who privately knew segregation was wrong, but defended it anyway?
Sources: Ranker.com (~373k voters, ~3.2M votes), TheTopTens.com (~34k votes), New York Post (1999, ~20k votes); for the last, an accompanying commentary by the Statistical Assessment Service conveniently explains the flaws of online polling. My goal was to use these lists to determine general groups of people consider evil; if you intend to make a more comprehensive or objective list, please use discretion. I primarily used Ranker, due to its large vote count and span, with the other lists being used as accompaniment.
n=8; I did not include every list as a source, as most did not include voters.
Source: Mein Kampf, summized on Wikipedia. (Direct links to the book are available there.)
Source: [A Former Nazi's] Personal Recollections of Adolf Hitler.
While Hitler's emphasis on animal welfare may have been exaggerated, it is generally agreed to have been present. See Wikipedia for a brief treatment of Hitler's vegetarianism, with further sources listed there.
Source: U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum
Transferring power from wealthy landowning white men to white men in general; even though such is far from all-encompassing, it is certainly an improvement.
Tweed's Wikipedia page gives a comically long list of the corporations in which he was involved: "At the height of his influence, Tweed was the third-largest landowner in New York City, a director of the Erie Railroad, a director of the Tenth National Bank, a director of the New-York Printing Company, the proprietor of the Metropolitan Hotel, a significant stockholder in iron mines and gas companies, a board member of the Harlem Gas Light Company, a board member of the Third Avenue Railway Company, a board member of the Brooklyn Bridge Company, and the president of the Guardian Savings Bank."
The American bias of these polls is particularly noticeable here; regardless, the motivation of terrorists is largely consistent, so I am comfortable using these individuals here.
Even the original meaning of the word "terrorist", which referred to a violent agent of the French Revolution, reflects the sentiment of righteous evil.
Source: Radford and FGCU; interestingly, motive is highly gendered, with 64.2% of men killing out of pleasure or impulse and 70.4% of women killing for financial or gang-related reasons.
Source: Wikipedia.
I will suggest the Gospel, but I am aware of how that will be received on this forum, and that even conversion to Christianity does not render one immune from sin. In the interest of preventing the comment section from devolving into a debate about religion, I will discuss it no further.
King Leopold II, for instance.