"THE WORLD WILL NOT BE DESTROYED BY THOSE WHO DO EVIL, BUT BY THOSE WHO WATCH THEM WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING." ~ Albert Einstein

agm, wrong. i do not agree with this philosophical conclusion. i have decided a while ago that Einstein is an idiot, and this just proves that indeed he is.

The crime is committed by the criminals and not by the innocent bystanders. Sometimes being a witness to a crime is enough to help bring justice. Those who do evil are destroying the world, by definition, and are obviously guilty of their crimes, unlike those who did nothing. To suggest that a murderer did not destroy a world of an innocent victim but those who didn't stop it in time are somehow responsible for it is ludicrous. 

How is it possible that those who do nothing are accused by Einstein to be more guilty in destroying the world than those who are actively pursuing the evil agenda by criminal acts? It is blaming the innocent and the victim, yet not addressing the root of the problem at its core. Therefore it should say, the world will be destroyed by those who do evil, and not by those who did nothing, meaning the innocent, since the definition of an innocence is to have done nothing wrong. 

Or else you can run around like a chicken without a head attempting to stop all evils of the world and still being blamed for all the wrong that the evil does. That's simple unreasonable and not what the justice is all about. I actually can't believe that i had to explain this, again, since i already wrote about it a while back.

The criminal order givers and followers are equally responsible for committing a crime under the law. One cannot be innocent of a crime by issuing an order a kill, or following an order to kill, and both are legally responsible for their actions. Arguably those who issue an order to commit a criminal act are more guilty than those who are simply following the orders or their duties.
Regardless of who is more guilty of a crime, the instigator or the perpetrator of it, both, nonetheless, are guilty of doing something wrong and are not the definition, the perpetrator in this case, of an innocent witness who did nothing. Those who did nothing wrong, even if they may have witnessed someone else doing wrong, should have no fear of the law and are innocent until proven guilty. Anyway, God knows where people's hearts and minds are at in any situation, with all the karmic repercussions as a consequence.

Ignorance is not a defence in the court of law and before God's final judgement. Ignorance is not innocence. Being apathetic is not a crime, it is a mental/spiritual condition, usually after someone has gone through a traumatising experience. Thus to accuse someone of not being passionate about something is absurd. When it comes to the human laws, the verdict is clear: one has to commit a crime to be held responsible for it. There is no crime in doing nothing and one cannot be charged for doing nothing. 

That's as far as the human laws go, the rest of the performance in decision making and value placement of a free soul is judged by God, the subconsciousness, the Holy Spirit, what not, since resat assured no crimes go unpunished as no thought goes unnoticed by God. The crimes are being committed all the time all over the world in all sorts of fashions, that does not mean that all have to lose sleep over it and jump into a fight against the evils of the world until the Hell is frozen over and the Satan is overthrown. Nonsense. Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law. Regardless, at the end the souls will rip what they sow. The universal balance will not be compromised.