Who is the most evil?

Apoth42 said:
Meanwhile, Napoleon, Genghis and Alexander were simply in it for glory.

Alexander massacred whole cities and upon his death he said "the strongest" when asked who would inherit his empire. His final message ushered in 200 years of internal war in the hellenistic world.

Genghis literally viewed non-nomads as equal to cows and expanded for glories sake. He literally killed millions in a day during some of his conquests. During his conquest of Persia he had the aquaducts filled in with concrete and had the house of wisdom destroyed as part of a revenge plan.

Napoleon was also just in it for glory. Millions died so a man could larp.

Of course, you could say that about literally any noble ever. The hundreds years war was basically glory.

Perhaps you could just look to rapists and pedos like Lavrentiy Beria - head of the NKVD. He raped and murdered hundreds of children and used ran the gulag system.
Click to expand...
1. Genghis Khan was an absolutely terrible person but it's insulting to portray his ambitions like that. Genghis established order in a lawless land where he and his was persecuted, his wife was stolen and it was eternal war between tribes. The early mongol empire was solely based on conquest and tribute, many of the most extreme examples of Mongol barbarism were to attempt to make other cities subjugate without force. He likely saved lives this way rather then raging a regular war.
Perhaps the Arabs shouldn't have provoked Gheghis Khan by bragging about how strong the walls of Baghdad were?
2. The wars of the successors weren't really Alexander's fault as much as inevitable as a result of a single empire expanding over so many diverse cultures on top of featuring some of the most experienced generals in history. No empire reaching from Greece to India could survive. Even if Alexander appointed a true successor there still would have been significant conflict. He also didn't do it for glory to a point, his father built up the best army in the world and was planning on fighting the Persians for revenge. Anything past Persia was just for glory though.
I do strongly agree Alexander was a terrible person. He likely murdered his dad and had numerous rivals assassinated. He also got drunk and killed Cleitus the Black, a general who saved his life prior.
3. Napoleon is interesting because he resulted from a really divided time in French history, but everybody knows that. What you have to remember is the prior divide between Habsburg nations and Bourbon France, which only intensified as a response to the radical ideas proposed by the French revolution. Many of the wars Napoleon found himself in were declared by foreign countries, everybody was looking to take a piece out of France when it was at it's weakest. Beyond that, he create the confederacy of the Rhine, progressed human rights further then any leader before him and brought in the metric system, which shows that beyond glory Napoleon wanted to stabilize his nation and standardize. What would you do when the world's great superpower and their friends declare war on you? Napolean wasn't a good guy but I'm not sure what else he could do.

It's easy to look at actions and see the bad results of them, but you have to look at things from their perspective. People take strong actions to stabilize situations. Nobody wakes up, goes "I need glory" and somehow gets chosen to lead for that alone, it usually involves politics.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: millais and Lemmingwise
Everyone of those "terrible people" advanced history. Genghis Khan allowed ideas to spread from the East to the West, Alexander did the same thing, Napoleon got rid of Feudalism and brought law and order to the land. Mao transformed China into a superpower, Stalin took a feudal backdrop that kept losing wars to almost conquering all of Europe if not for the Allies in World War 2 and a superpower for 50 years, Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower whose shit is useful to this day.

The British however have done nothing but try to destroy any progress there is so they can maintain their position.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: millais and Lerk
Ayn Rand and her fuck buddies, like Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan and their intellectual love children who got us into Iraq. They have basically dismantled anything decent in the world, and fucked over the poorest and stupidest who keep breeding like rabbits and embracing violent versions of Islam and produced the trending authoritarian hell we now have in sight.
I can now take off my tin foil hat
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrunoMattei
There is no such thing as good and evil in nature. What Hitler did was a typical act of a human being , human nature, self preservation
 
ICameToplaY said:
Idi Amin

Also known as "The Butcher of Uganda."
Click to expand...

There is far more evil people than Amin. I do however hold him up as an example that Karma is not guaranteed to exist. Doing evil unto others doesn't mean it will be visited unto you. Living in paradise with a dozen children is hardly a sad end for dictator/cannibal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: penultim0
ProgKing of the North said:
>what Hitler did
>Holocaust Denier

So what did Hitler do?
Click to expand...
I dunno but some people who claim pajamas stop 7.92 kurz cartridges, you can clear 100 bodies from a bedroom in 5 minutes by hand, and women are more flammable than men tell me the most horrible event in history was his fault.
 
ICametoLurk said:
Everyone of those "terrible people" advanced history. Genghis Khan allowed ideas to spread from the East to the West, Alexander did the same thing, Napoleon got rid of Feudalism and brought law and order to the land. Mao transformed China into a superpower, Stalin took a feudal backdrop that kept losing wars to almost conquering all of Europe if not for the Allies in World War 2 and a superpower for 50 years, Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower whose shit is useful to this day.

The British however have done nothing but try to destroy any progress there is so they can maintain their position.
Click to expand...
Maintain their own position and reap a profit at the expense of all other nations. In the eyes of their ruling classes, were always a mercantile empire above all else, and they created the insidious system of international finance and capital as we know it today. Further down the administrative ladder, they were petty imperialists with an insatiable appetite for expansion and obsessed with painting the map red. And what did they give to their subjugated conquests? Obsolete measurement system, wrong way traffic flow, shitty cuisine, le 56% Celto-Roman-Saxon-Norman mongrel culture, stupidly sentimental Victorian morality, a smattering of good literature, and international finance.
 
"Evil" is just a matter of perspective. Anyone can be considered "evil" with the correct framing and the right amount of information, making labeling "evil" pointless, because the amount of information we personally have on the person ends up determining how evil a person is. Its why I like the farms, there's a ton of information on the person I wouldn't usually come across myself, aggregated by all the autists who contribute to this community. Hitler is evil because there is a copious amount of information documented about his regime, from his early life, to his rise in the party, to the death camps and experimentation done to the Jewish population in said camps. Its much harder for people to picture Mao or Stalin as evil because they're crimes are a lot less well documented due to how heavily information is controlled by their respective regimes. The corpses left from those regimes probably are scattered across their respective countries in ditches and rivers with no name and no reason discernible reason why they were killed.

Let's take Milo Yiannopolis as an example. The guy is a fucking idiot for a lot of things he's said, but he's no pedophile. Yet he was turned essentially into pedo #1 by the MSM for his comments on a shitty podcast that very few people watched. By our information, Milo is not "evil," but because other people don't know anything about Milo, he has become "evil" in the eyes of the public.

Therefore, I posit that the most "evil" people are the journalists, historians, educators and information brokers who attempt to willfully obfuscate facts and change history and the narrative to their liking instead of reporting objective facts.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: BrunoMattei
Child molesters and people who talk in the theater.

They all get to go to the special hell.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: BrunoMattei
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back