e�vil
adj. e�vil�er, e�vil�est

Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

n.
The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
An evil force, power, or personification.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice

(lifted from dictionary.com)
---------------------------------------

There is a grouping, a category, or a political type that appears to be utterly evil and they are consistently enough that way that we can predict where they will stand on any given issue. They will stand on the side of starvation, death, and immeasurable misery for people that are powerless and in need. It is as if they relish the misfortune of the misfortunate.

In the interests of objectificaion, let's say that there is a category of people that consistently favour war over peace. They consistently support those with power over those that have little or none. They support death and misery and scorn attempts to relieve human misery and pain.

Where They Stand

Poverty: This category of human beings support any policies that cut social support for those in need (eg. cutting spending on health care).

Wealth: They support greed and they support the rich (they won't complain about spending on plunder, war, and conquest).

Racism: They are generaly racist.

Immigration: They see immigrants as threats. They crave uniformity and social conformity.

Law and Order: Favour harsh rigid laws against the poor and liberal discretion for the wealthy.

Death Penalty: In favour of it.

Nationalism: Highly nationalistic and patriotic to the point of a willingness to kill people in foriegen lands for no other reason than 'we are at war'.

Feminism: Highly distrustful not only of feminists but of women as well.

Gay Rights: Homosexuality is seen as a problem.

Religion: They generally support religious movements that are conservative. They would hang Jesus but are often devout Christians.

War: Always at the ready to support the state in the mindless slaughter of human beings.

The State: Loathe state functions that distribute wealth or interfere with the aims of the very wealthy.

The State: Enthusiastically support the state in war efforts, prisons, or any other oppressive functions.

If such a category of people exist; people that support poverty, obscene wealth, racism, patriarchy, nationalism, the death penalty, religion as a social control mechanism, war, the state etc., we could make the reasonable argument that they fit into the above definition of evil that was lifted from Dictionary.com. We have the misfortune to know that such people not only exist but they enjoy ominous influence and control over the rest of us. They are not only the backward and naive lackeys. They run the governments of America, Britain, Canada, France, Germany and most governments and corporations on the planet. The reason for this is that they consistently support the wishes of the wealthy and powerful and in many cases are one and the same. Any politicians that are not wealthy must function as the paid whores of the wealthy.

Such people are generally categorized as right wingers and this category has significant and really surprising cohesion. That is, most right wingers consistenly support an ideological framework that is consistent with the above charges. There are exceptions however. But if there are too many exceptions they are no longer in the category.

Their response to this unflattering snapshot will be to rationalize their views (eg. the death penalty deters crime (in the face of evidence to the contrary)), deny them (I am not a racist), avoid them (there is no torture if there are no pictures), or blame victims (they blew up the twin towers).

Perhaps the idea that they are evil is a little harsh and unforgiving. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the average right winger is merely a patsy.

The average rightist will argue tooth and nail that any and all attempts at feeding the poor will result in a Joseph Stalin type of totalitarain tyranny. There is a man standing behind him with moneybags that has convinced him that he needs his wealthy master; that to interfere with his masters structural scam is to open the door to disaster. Moneybags is saying to his stooge that the stooge is indebted to the master for his livilihood and everything he owns. Rock the boat and all will be lost.

But then there is another sentiment that is not so forgivable. This right winger knows that he is in recept of the spoils of hegemony. He knows that war is about plunder and that state supported dictatorships in the far reaches of the globe force people to grow cash crops to feed him as reasonable prices. He knows that oil wars will keep the oil supply close to his Ford.

Both types - the quisling little idiot under his masters table and the psychopath - are not mutually exclusive from each other. Most on the right are a mixuture of both.

Crime and evil harm countless innocent people every day and stupidity is no excuse for crime. Stupidity doesn't forgive those that make the slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan possible. You can't say that you are not responsible for killing kids when you speed in a drunken state through a school yard and you can't say you're not responsible for 'collatoral damage' just because you mindlessly support war.

The conclusion is that the right wing is evil. It is, apparently, a sound and valid argument.