The title says it all: there have been some great villains in history, so which do you most despise?

Oh - and please lets leave out Hitler, because he is too obvious and puts others in the shade.. :rolleyes:

My anti-favourite would be either King John of England or Tamarlane the Terrible.

The first, because he led his country to financial ruin, had the whole people placed under interdict by the pope (no church services of any kind), starved or executed probably hundreds of thousands, reversed the powerful reputation his brother Richard had won, and took revenge on his nobles for their revolt by hiring an army of foreign mercenaries to kill and ruin as much as possible - in his own nation.

The second, because of the sheer number of people he had slaughtered. Being on the losing side in a war against him was certain death, even for the sick and elderly.

Jesus

yeah, let's say I'm not very christian, and I don't want to insult everyone who is. So I won't write down my motivation.

Oh, hmm. So many to pick from, but I think Julius Caesar would have to be my least favorite. Although I'm semi-inclined to agree with Victor E...

Plato.......cause, he is one of the major instigators of our sense of dualism between Nature/body and spirit/consciousness. he's been called the father of modern philosophy, and his presence is STILL with us

what i friggin hypocrites he was...saying about how philosopher-kings should be running things, and on about utopias yet lookin down his nose at common people and seeing nothin wrong with slavery

There is also evidence he was a self-denying Queer, and thus one of the reasons he championed sexless 'platonic love'

he looked down his precious snotter at Nature. so he is at the top of my list of arseholes of history

Jesus

yeah, let's say I'm not very christian, and I don't want to insult everyone who is. So I won't write down my motivation.

I know a lot of wrong's been done because of christianity, but is Jesus any worse than Mohamed or Budda in that way?


Plato..........saying about how philosopher-kings should be running things, and on about utopias yet lookin down his nose at common people and seeing nothin wrong with slavery

Pretty evil, sure, but back then slavery and snobbery must have seemd natural to humans. Perhaps Plato's upbringing simply didnt describe slavery as nasty at all...
Platonic love, though - I rather have a problem with that too.

Struggling to decide between caesar and jesus seems odd to me, seeing as how they couldn't be more different.

I say jesus, because he represents an anti-roman jewish movement which put an end to the bettering of mankind and the harmony of the earth in favour of being unnaturally peacefull towards our own kind.
The repurcussions have been astronomical.
Overpopulation, disease, pollution, the mass extinction, the destruction of cultures and so on and so on, the sorry state of the planet can be attributed to jesus' movement.
It is anti-earth and unprecedented wrecklessness having humongously disastrous consequences in a scarily short time period.
And most obnoxiously, it is guised in good intentions and false righteousness.
Jesus' only redeeming quality is he got exactly what he deserved.
I wish he would rise from the dead just so he could get a little more.

It isn't just the two of them I was struggling to decide between, there are others I dislike as well. Besides, I don't think they're all that different in terms of what effect they had on the world.

Pope Innocent III -> Sent his measely knights to Baltics.

Ironic, Innocent III was the pope who interdictd England in King John's time.! A connection between your answer + mine.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm

Are you from the Baltics, Avatar?

Joseph Stalin

Death toll
About one million people were shot during the periods 1935-38, 1942 and 1945-50 and millions of people were transported to Gulag labour camps. In Georgia about 80,000 people were shot during 1921, 1923-24, 1935-38, 1942 and 1945-50, and more than 100,000 people were transported to Gulag camps.

On March 5, 1940, Stalin himself and other Soviet leaders signed the order to execute 25,700 Polish intelligentsia including 14,700 Polish POWs. It became known as Katyn massacre. Some other infamous massacres: massacre of prisoners 30,000-40,000 people.

It is generally agreed by historians that if famines, prison and labour camp mortality, and state terrorism (deportations and political purges) are taken into account, Stalin and his colleagues were directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions. How many millions died under Stalin is greatly disputed. Although no official figures have been released by the Soviet or Russian governments, most estimates put the figure between 8 and 20 million. Comparison of the 1926-39 census results suggests 5-10 million deaths in excess of what would be normal in the period, mostly through famine in 1931-34. The 1926 census shows the population of the Soviet Union at 147 million while the 1939 census at 162 million. (Another census from 1937 is known as the "wrecker's census"; its figures were suppressed.) The highest death estimates are 50 million from the 1920s to 1950s, but they are probably greatly exaggerated.

A quote popularly attributed to Stalin is "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." (possibly said in response to Churchill at the Potsdam Conference in 1945).

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/josephstalin/

Are you from the Baltics, Avatar?

I am, at least. And even though the pope started the more than 700-year long occupation of the Baltic countries, by various countries, which all used the local villagers as slaves, I must say that our coutries were at that time so technologically undeveloped, that the occupation would have happened one way or another. Now the enslaving of the local population is another thing. I don't know, if the enslaving would have happened if the people had accepted the christianity peacefully, but still.

I wouldn't call Pope Innocent evil, still. By the standards of that time he was probably a loyal servant of god, and fought with the infidels, to spread the only right religion. We can't judge people with our time's sense of justice.

Yes, but I still don't like him. And not neccesseraly (technologically undeveloped), because Lithuania together with Poland had an empire that reached as far as the Black Sea. It was more about local politics and local tribes too pissed off against each other to unite against the germans.
p.s. I'm from Latvia.

How about Torquemada and Isabella? Or, more recently, Pohl Pot?
However, my choice goes to L'Olonnais, a French pirate in the Caribbean in the 17th century. By all accounts, he was both intelligent, and exceptionally cruel and brutal - not a good combination.
When a Spanish ship sent to hunt him down surrendered, he killed the entire 90 man crew, save one who he sent to the Spanish authorities to tell them that in future he will kill all the men they sent after him.

Wow, that pirate could be my hero! :cool:

Or, more recently, Pohl Pot?

There's someone I didnt think of.. strange, cause his reign of fear wasnt long before my time. Isnt he still suposed to be alive somewhere?

Maximillian Robespierre, maybe the most influential figure in the French Revolution. As the leading spokesman for the Jacobins, he was instrumental in creating the new constitution. He at first supported a constitutional monarchy by when the king, pretty much in house arrest, attempted to slip across the border to Austria, Robespeirre decided he needed to be executed. Later he supported the guillotining of those loyalists who were perceived as threats to the new republic. All not to bad at that point, but it seems at some point Robespeirre began losing touch with reality, attempting to introduce a new religion in France, The Cult Of The Supreme Being, in whcih he actually appeared dressed in some toga-type outfit standing on top of a manmade mountain in the streets of Paris. He began his final descent after ordering wholesale slaughter of 'enemies of the state' that led to the Reign of Terror'. Any body you owed money to, or had a grudge against, or looked at you wrong, you reported them as a loyalist and it was off with their head. Fittingly, as even many of Robespierre's fellow Jacobins began to get nervous about their own heads, they accused him of his own brand of tyranny and it was off with his head.

Joseph Stalin
A fair enough choice, cosmictraveler, but you then go on to refer to

. . . Stalin himself and other Soviet leaders
. . . Stalin and his colleagues . . .
and herein lies the problem, I think. You very rightly feel the need to couple Stalin's name with "others". Because Chairman Stalin was the visible face of Soviet Communism, we too readily tend to think of him as the instigator of all that was evil therein. It may be that he was chosen as a figurehead by more powerful forces behind the scenes. He was a good-looking fellow, and his Georgian origins did not create a problem. Most of the original Bolsheviks were Jews, but were at pains to disguise the extent of Jewish hegemony at the centre of Soviet power. So much of what went on in the Soviet Union was kept secret or deliberately misrepresented by its agencies of propaganda that it is difficult to discern what was the actual state of affairs – especially in regard to the power structure. It is not fanciful to suppose that greater power lay with the Secret Police (OGPU, later NKVD) than rested in the official organs of state.

The forced collectivisation of the Ukraine, estimated to have cost 6 to 7 million lives, was spearheaded by Lazar Kaganovich and assisted by Genrikh Yogoda, head of the Secret Police. Either of these two might also be candidates for Least Favourite Historical Figure. Or was this Jewish-inspired holocaust against the Ukrainians justified revenge for pogroms in earlier generations?

The expression “Stalin’s henchman” is often attached to Kaganovich, but was this Georgian amid so many Jews really the controlling power? Who or what was Kaganovich really working for? It may well be that Stalin’s power outgrew that of those who originally controlled him. From figurehead he became father-figure, iconic leader and thence all-powerful dictator . . . or did his power always rest on a knife-edge? History has still to reveal a convincing answer to so many questions about the Soviet Union.

Most of the original Bolsheviks were Jews, but were at pains to disguise the extent of Jewish hegemony at the centre of Soviet power.

Ooo, theres a tasty controversey for the holocaust survivors..! :mad:
The idea that Jews might have CAUSED a bigger campain of mass murders than they suffred from - its something you dont see in history tv channells.

Then again, werent a lot of the victims of communist genocide also jewish?

I never heard of such an thing, but Hitlers invasion of Russia takes on new color if the "jews as enemys" card was being playd by him at the time, to motivate his troops pushin east..

Sir Isaac Newton.

Ever since he invented gravity people and things have been falling causing great harm to society.

Werent apples (+ coconuts, which hurt more) falling on peoples heads even before Newton?

Can I say Mr. Bush reason being he can't run a country and fighting a pointless war for oil.

Werent apples (+ coconuts, which hurt more) falling on peoples heads even before Newton?
Coconuts do more than hurt. They are positively lethal. As a species, they are more dangerous to humans than lions, tigers or sharks. We all too rarely pause to consider how different a course physics might have taken if Mr Newton had been sitting under a coconut tree. :eek:

Right.. we might all stil think things moved because of ether pushing them about. could Einstein have come up with what he did ifnot for newton?

Can I say Mr. Bush reason being he can't run a country and fighting a pointless war for oil.

YES you CAN mate, and i am speakin it out loud and long with you!

The idea that Jews might have CAUSED a bigger campain of mass murders than they suffred from - its something you dont see in history tv channells.

Then again, werent a lot of the victims of communist genocide also jewish?

It is true that a lot of Jews were among those who perished - if only because the Revolution consumed so many of its own leaders amid its internal conflicts. One thinks most of all of Trotsky, who more than any other man planned the Revolution, tracked down and murdered by Soviet agents in Mexico in 1940.

Speaking of Trotsky reminds me of four other things you probably never learned about on the History TV channels:

1. In his "Memoirs", Aron Simanovich, Rasputin's secretary, attributed these words to Trotsky: "We must turn Russia into a desert populated by white negroes upon whom we shall impose a tyranny such as the most terrible Eastern despots never dreamt of. The only difference is that this will be a left-wing tyranny, not a right-wing tyranny. It will be a red tyranny and not a white one. We mean the word 'red' literally, because we shall shed such floods of blood as will make all the human losses suffered in the capitalist wars quake and pale by comparison. The biggest bankers across the ocean will work in the closest possible contact with us. If we win the revolution, we shall establish the power of Zionism upon the wreckage of the revolution's funeral, and we shall became a power before which the whole world will sink to its knees. We shall show what real power is. By means of terror and bloodbaths, we shall reduce the Russian intelligentsia to a state of complete stupefaction and idiocy and to an animal existence... At the moment, our young men in their leather jackets, who are the sons of watchmakers from Odessa, Orsha, Gomel and Vinnitsa, know how to hate everything Russian! What pleasure they take in physically destroying the Russian intelligentsia - officers, academics and writers!" Whether or not these words were ever uttered, they almost certainly expressed the ambition of many Bolshevik Jews.

2. The first European genocide of the Twentieth Century was that carried out by the Bolsheviks against the Don Cossacks beginning in 1919. Once a million strong, they may have lost three-quarters of their number, and have effectively ceased to exist as a distinct people, though individual Ukrainians claim Cossack descent.

3. After the Jewish-led (General Shimon Kirvoshein) Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939 about one million Poles were rounded up by the Jewish-led NKVD and deported to the Gulags of Kazakhstan and Siberia where a grim fate awaited them.

4. In July 1941, prior to US entry into WWII, the New York Jew Theodore Kaufman published his blueprint for the Final Solution to the German problem: "Germany Must Perish". The cover bore the slogan, "The book that Hitler Fears". The book proposed the liquidation of the German race through sterilization after their defeat.

What we should learn from all this is that ethnic conflict has been an age-old story in middle and eastern Europe. It is part of the evolutionary struggle. I am not inclined to look for a least favourite historical figure among those who have participated in it. If we seek true villainy, should we not rather be looking for a TRAITOR, a TURNCOAT or a BETRAYER?

Nixon. I can't stand his type.

What we should learn from all this is that ethnic conflict has been an age-old story in middle and eastern Europe. It is part of the evolutionary struggle. I am not inclined to look for a least favourite historical figure among those who have participated in it. If we seek true villainy, should we not rather be looking for a TRAITOR, a TURNCOAT or a BETRAYER?

Thats 1 reason I asked peopel not to name Hitler as their anti-favorite..

Turncoats, traitors.. mutineers? Judas Iscarriet? Maybe King John again - he betrayd his father.

Lee Harvy Oswald - didnt he defect to the russians for a while, before coming home + killing Kennedy?

Here's more examples:
http://www.parida.com/ddd1.html

But how about Fletcher christian? He wasnt a bad man as such. 1 person's traitor is anothers hero, as with terrorists + freedom fighters

Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, etc., all for the sheer amount of deaths under their reign. Hitler's cruel and systematic extermination was terrifying, but the amount of Jews killed under him pales in comparison to the others.

You think if Hitler had made peace + stayd in power longer, wed all think he wasnt so bad these days?

The second, because of the sheer number of people he had slaughtered. Being on the losing side in a war against him was certain death, even for the sick and elderly.
Did you know that Tamerlane was also known as a Savior of Europe because he defeated Bayazit who was starting the campaign to Europe?

Never heard of Bayazit, what country was he from? was he a nomad leadr too?

You think if Hitler had made peace + stayd in power longer, wed all think he wasnt so bad these days?Hitler made one massive mistake.
He lost.
And history is written by the winners!

Imagine if the Nazis had written the history books. Churchill the drunkard. Roosevelt the cripple. Both of them the tools of Jewish finance. Both tried and hanged for the indiscriminate bombing of German cities, and the British and American nations forever shamed by the tales of death and destruction - the subject of endless movies and TV dramas for sixty years. The benign heroic Uncle Adolf has brought prosperity and ever-lasting peace to a United Europe, freed from the shadow of Bolshevism.

Might be intersting to read a book like that, just for the irony.. perhpas the neo nazis hav actualy wrote 1?

I don't know of such a book - but "alternative history" is a flourishing subject. I quite expect a fews essays along such lines have been written.

Len Deighton's "SS-GB" imagines an occupied Britain after a successful Nazi invasion. But it is a thoroughly anti-Nazi book. It is also a VERY GOOD READ! Recommended!

A nearly forgotten psychologist named Edison. After studying behaviorism(pre-Skinner) in the beginning of the 1900's, he turned his talents to advertisements making a mint for chesterfield cigarrettes among others. He was the progenator of of the science of the control of human masses behavior. His techniques revolutionized advertizing and propaganda to the detriment of the world.

River Ape....pogroms in the Ukaine themselves were revenge for arenda contracts (http://www.ukar.org/shest01.html)--a joint effort by Polish Catholic nobles and Jews to milk the Urkaine for every cent.

River Ape....pogroms in the Ukaine themselves were revenge for arenda contracts (http://www.ukar.org/shest01.html)--a joint effort by Polish Catholic nobles and Jews to milk the Urkaine for every cent.
So to my question: "Or was this Jewish-inspired holocaust against the Ukrainians justified revenge for pogroms in earlier generations?" . . . you answer NO. I answer that justification is an irrelevance.

In a later post I wrote: "What we should learn from all this is that ethnic conflict has been an age-old story in middle and eastern Europe. It is part of the evolutionary struggle." The survival of the fittest is something above right and wrong. We feel the thirst to avenge the defeat or persecution of our own people. That is good enough. Vengeance lowers itself by making excuses.

We also learn from history that the ways of the Jew do not change from generation to generation. They deploy their cohorts of wealth; they are cunning; they are relentless. It is a lesson that those they live among do well to learn. At present, the holocaust myth protects them. It is not a myth that perhaps three million Jews perished. The myth is that it was something special.

The problem is many refuse to admit all sides of history. The New York Times still dodges not reporting on the Holodomor. Revolts against the arenda system as often described as pogroms when, in fact, they were more often serf uprisings.

We also learn from history that the ways of the Jew do not change from generation to generation. They deploy their cohorts of wealth; they are cunning; they are relentless. .

that Jewish faith + practices have stayed so much the same over 1000s of years is something we can all admire, especialy when theyve been picked on by so many peoples from the Egyptains to the neo Nazis.

Just why have Jews always been so disliked?

Because they pick on others just like everybody else does.

We hear of the explusion from Spain but little of how Jews were working with Moors to overthrown the Christian Crown.

They picked the wrong side is what occurred. There was no great animus to them. Repeatedly the Crown told them to leave Christians alone. They didn't. The final act was expulsion of Moors and Jews.

Don't see how that makes them victims. They were combatants who lost.

River Ape...After the Jewish-led (General Shimon Kirvoshein) Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939 about one million Poles were rounded up by the Jewish-led NKVD and deported to the Gulags

Met one of those deportees in Florida. A very young school teachers when he was arrested. And yes, Polish Jews who supported Stalin turned him in. He told me how on the cattle car, a Jewish man from his school kept saying, "I know why they took you, but why me? Why me?" And it was true, most of those sent to the camp were Catholic.

When Germany invaded, he was released from the Gulag to fight in the Red Army. At the end of the war, he made his way to the Allied zone where he married at Polish lady whose husband of three months had been murdered in the Katyn forest.

I hate Abraham Lincoln. He was a hippocrit and had many despotic tendancies that history convienently overlooked. He never intended to free the slaves until his hands were tied. It seemed the only black slaves were freed because Native American slaves were still being used for years after they were supposed to be released. That leads to another on my hate list, Father Junipero Serra. If he's ever made a sain it will be that of slave drivers.

The answer for the most despicable historical figure hands down is Karl Marx. His evil ideas have caused over 100 million deaths. I am sure there is a extra hot space in Hell for him right now. His communist manifesto is a Satanic document that should have been consigned to the sewers of history. Excrement is better than his ideas. At least excrement when used for fertilizer causes good things to grow. His brand of excrement only destroys and poisons minds. His ideas spawned other evil monsters like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Castro.

Just why have Jews always been so disliked?
That's a big question, and there are other threads on the Jews, so maybe we should not let the subject entirely take over this thread. But you have actually produced some evidence against them yourself.

Here's more examples [of traitors]:
http://www.parida.com/ddd1.html
More than half the people pictured on that link are Jews!

Karl Marx. His evil ideas have caused over 100 million deaths.... His ideas spawned other evil monsters like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Castro.

Marx didnt mean to cause all those deaths, if you can say its his fault the way people used hsi teachings. The others you name DID mean to do it.


More than half the people pictured on that link are Jews!

but s it their religion that maden them traiotrrs, or their actions?

but s it their religion that maden them traiotrrs, or their actions?
Their loyalty was to the Jewish race -- not to those they lived among, or who employed them. In their own eyes, therefore, their actions did not make them traitors. One might argue that the real betrayers of their own people are those who have trusted Jews. Their crime has been folly.

you'd say then, that Jews realy are bad for the countrys they live in - just like al l the anti Semitists do?

Perhaps jews see Christians as traitors, because they folowed jesus + strayd from the OLd testamant beliefs?

I oppose people for what they support not what they are.

That said, when one looks at the leadership of the ACLU, PFAW, who gives over half the money which funds the DNC and who leads the Worker's World party front A.N.S.W.E.R. (Leslie Cagan and Brian Becker)there is no way around mentioning a group.

The ACLU was founded by Roger Balwin and others to stop another deportation such that of Morris Becker, Emma Goldman and hundreds of other bolshiviks on the USS Buford to their pal Lenin. They were deported in reaction to over 30 bolshevik* bombings in America in 1919--one which tore up the front of the house of the U.S.Attorney General.

In its early years, the ACLU was funded by the GPU.and later the NKVD.

It still is a front. The agenda is not liberty--it is Gramscian socialism. The first, and most important, court cases seeking to censor the free exercise of religion were led by Leo Pfeffer--lead lawyer for the AJCongress. That was a little too obvious. The ACLU files the bulk of the cases today.

The ACLU won a case prohibiting a prayer at a HS graduation. It filed a case recently seeking to ban a science teacher from even mentioning a book on Intelligent Design. It has won millions in court costs winning suits tearing down the Ten Commandants from public places.

Yeah...the ACLU loves free speech.

Their speech.

Now and then it files a good case as cover, to suck in the suckers. Can't be cultural marxists all the time.

*they usually called themselves other names--anarchists for one--but they were on the side of Zinoviev ("10% of the Russian people should be liquidated!"), Trotsky and Lenin. There is no doubt about it.

Perhaps jews see Christians as traitors, because they folowed jesus + strayd from the OLd testamant beliefs?
An insignificant number of Christians were ever Jews - so they have not strayed. The Jews despise the "Jews for Jesus" organisation, but I believe they win back a fair proportion of the Jews who are attracted to it. Always remember that being Jewish is first and foremost about belonging to a race or clan, not about religious belief. You are Jewish by having a Jewish mother, even if she was an atheist.

Gilles de Rais. There is nothing lower than those who abuse animals and/or children. Especially in the way he did.

:bugeye: Hey...I'm new...and I cannot believe that there is a marijuana leaf as a smilie..what has this world come to?

Anyhew...
Mi arsehole(opinion, if you will)
Ahem..

Newton...we might as well sit around and blame everything on him. He invented Calculus for crying out loud! What kind of sick-minded physcopath would spend his summer free-time inventing a type of math?! Unless, of course, he was secretly plotting to ruin Western 'civilization' by poisioning the minds of innocent teenagers with evil implementations like 'power rules'....no wonder we have marijuana smilies....
Not to mention the machine-like-veiw of the universe that his studies spred during the Enlightenment...what imbicility!

At least we had other idiots to contradict that and confuse us into comfort. Einstein, for example.

But if you want to blame anyone for history, blame France. And Italy. And Greece. In opposite order of course. (note: Scorates came before Plato..blame Socrates for Greece's problems...of course, Plato had to write it down for us, didn't he? :mad: )

And then there's Darwin. Tell me one useful thing he came up with, besides giving Social Darwinists an excuse to act completely immorally. Chaimberlain, for example. If one thing's stupid, it's his Ayran race concept.

Yes, I think my least favorite histtorical figure is Darwin..don't ask me to be logical about it...

http://www.rof.com/images/DarwinFishLicensePlate.jpg

Newton...

Einstein

Yes, I think my least favorite histtorical figure is Darwin..don't ask me to be logical about it...

you reckon the world would be better without the great sientists of history? We'd all be more inocent and living off the land stil.. no pollution, no industry, no cars, no knowlege to speak of.

I wouldnt have startd this chat because thered be no computers :m:

I still say it's Gilles de Rais.

The unknown farmer who first tilled the soil
and cast mankind out of the Garden of Eden
by beginning the journey away from the life of the tribal hunter-gatherer
for which mankind was moulded by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.

""In the sweat of thy brow shalt thou toil for thy bread."

I would say King Henry VIII, for murdering his wives when they didn't produce male children, when it was really his own love-goo at fault. It makes me grind my teeth at the thought of it.

I would say King Henry VIII, for murdering his wives when they didn't produce male children, when it was really his own love-goo at fault. It makes me grind my teeth at the thought of it.
Don't you think it's a bit unfair picking on an Englishman (or Norman-Welshman) like that? As the Tudor dynasty emeged unchallenged in England, he became a figure of absolute power. And power, as we know, corrupts. He went a bit over the top, by English standards - even though he executed only two of his six wives.

But by the standards of the Orient, or of Ancient Rome, or even Continental Europe in much later times, he was a puppydog. When every restraint on the powerful is removed, the consequences can be hideous - and often have been. Read up on mistermistoffolees choice of Gilles de Rais. But do not imagine such viciousness has been without parallel.

For example Roman Emperor Neron executed his mother because she stayed in his way of absolute power.

he wasnt as evil or sick as Caligula - eg) he didnt get his sister pregnant then cut her open to eat the baby...

Can any royal or imperiel family carry on ruling for a few centuries WITHOUT turning corupt + crazy??

Well, look at Cronus, he ate 5 of his 6 children.
(I know, I know, that's a metaphor)

I hope he got Cronic indigestion!

Ewww... someone went to psychopath town.

Constantine, Emporor of Rome, who was the first to embrace 'Christianity'. I sooo wish he hadn't done this, then we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now with the 'Christian' influence spread across the globe.

I don't have many issues with the teachings of the person allegedly known as Jesus, which seem to have very little to do with what modern Christians believe and do.

Stalin takes the cake, the table, and the table cloth away.Just where these guys run with the dinette I don't know yet. Maybe in the future we can recognize the crazies at birth. Or according to Howard Bloom could it be the idea itself?

"The only thing stronger than a Nations Army is an idea whose time has come"-Victor Hugo

And somehow, theres still lots of people in Russia who would like to bring Stalin's type of governemt back!

George Harrison
Beatles Rock

jennyRater. . .Not only in Russia. Montclair State University professor Grover Furr has been educating his students in New Jersey to the virtues of Stalinism for two decades now. He has stated it was morally wrong to oppose the Soviet Union. Furr also believes the world needs another Stalinist International to save the world from exploiters.* (http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17367)

There is much disinformation in the Western media concerning Russia returning to totalitarianism. That view is pushed by those who are enraged that Putin moved against the Oligarchs who owned the media and 75% of Russian industry under Yeltsin. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky attempted, in 2002, to buy the Russia Duma. Misha bragged publically he would spend $100 million to do it. When Putin learned he was directing votes on the floor of the Duma with his cell phone, the investigation of Yukos Oil was stepped up and Khodorkovsky found himself in prison for stealing several billion dollars from the Russian people.

These crooks were funding the old Communist party , socialist parties and free market parties in an attempt to whipsaw and fragment the Russian people so they could continue their looting (they were taking billions out to Russia to the UK, Malta, Cypress and Israel).

This is exactly what was done to the Russian people in the run up to 1917.

When the western media, George Soros, Richard Perle and others cry about Putin having been in the KGB and the "soloviki" around him, one has to laugh. Yes, they were KGB. But they were the patriotic, diplomatic KGB who fought the Cold War. Khdorkovsky alone, however, had over 20,000 former internal KGB members on his payroll. These were the thugs and criminal who went after Soviet citizens.

Oh, I think I'll cry, tears in my eyes, Putin such a good, good, honest and beautiful man. Snif!. I understand now, I know the truth!! //cries

Typical. Never said that of Putin.

He is better than the crooks who had Yeltsin fronting for them.

Upset that the Oligarchs can't rip the Russian people off anymore? Upset that they aren't flying the kids to school in London on Gulfstream V's? Upset that they aren't buildings mansions in Tel Aviv and shrines to themself in Jerusalem with the money they were stealing from Russia?

All choked up that Putin told George Soros to get his nose out of Russia affairs?

The working people of Russia are glad they parasites who were feeding off them are, mostly, in exile or jail. When Putin put Mishna in a cell where he belongs, Putin's approval numbers went from under 60% to over 75%.

Liberals. You just got to love them. Any crook anywhere in the world grabs people by the throat and liberals hoot and hollar in glee.

And then go into a snit when the people fight back.

Nah, Putin is good for the Russian people and Russia, far better than Yeltsin ever was,
I just don't like Russia and its' people, that's all.

Avatar you dont like me :(

I wonder when it was that latvians started hating russia... was it during all of our past history that you were in the middle of the ruso/germanic split? Am I right when I say that latvia has always been far away from russia in lines of thought and politics... not to mention invading us in 1242 ? Im still mistified as to why you hate the russian people and russia... past life experience? well its your opinion feel free to express it , im just saying that " I hate the russian people" is a-bit centralised... not all of them can be that bad.

Avatar you dont like me
lol, I don't think that's a problem, because I dislike people and human contact in general, my country people included. And I dislike Americans more than Russians.

Ok fair enough, but I know atleast 10 nice americans who i like more than 10 russians I know... you can find assholes anywhere. :)

I wonder when it was that latvians started hating russia... was it during all of our past history that you were in the middle of the ruso/germanic split? Am I right when I say that latvia has always been far away from russia in lines of thought and politics... not to mention invading us in 1242 ? Im still mistified as to why you hate the russian people and russia... past life experience? well its your opinion feel free to express it , im just saying that " I hate the russian people" is a-bit centralised... not all of them can be that bad.
Aye, not all, but all that I have met, if you (oddly enough) count out some belorussians, but that is (I think) because of the Russian biggotry attitude as if they owned Latvia and all that was in it. I think that that hate started during the time when Latvia was a part of Russia in the second half of the 19th century, that's when official rusification politics stepped in from Moscow and Russian authorities started to destroy our culture. And yes, we've never been culturally or politically close to Russia.

Ye thats actually a reason for many contries in our area hating us... trying to expand and dominate other cultures.

its not as if the russians dont have enough land already..!

I said expand culturaly not physically

like spreading the russian languge, the vodka adiction and roulete, the furry hats..?

sort of... scratch the hats , vodka and roulette. :D

Nice to see my thread carryed on so well, but I think its spluterd out now! Cheers everyone!

Out of curiosity I read up on Gilles de Rais....

while his actions are atrocious, yes, but he isn't such a badass though. He was another dellusional, suggestionable fool who needed answers quick.

Real sick shit he did though, that can't be argued.


Vlad the impaler gets my choice. The things people would do in name of god.

i have no non-favorites beside hitler, heydrich, and himmler.

some that othes have claimed as "evil":
Vlad dracul III- kicked ass, killed turks, standard of the day...
Pope guy who ordered knights to occupy the baltics- i like the teutonic knights, what can i say?
Stalin- made russia a superpower, the ends justify the means
Cardinal Richelieu- ends always justify the means

big bird,

Sargentlard, you do know that if Vlad Tepes had not diod what he did, we would not have the book or movies "dracula" or the movie "nosferatu" and also, Europe would probably be ruled by the ottoman empire up to this day.

only heydrich, hitler, or himmler are historical figures that i hate.

The Harpe brothers, Wylie and Micajah, and the river pirate Samuel Mason--of Hole in the Rock fame--OK, nobody these days has ever heard of them, but they had their fifteen minutes of fame (albeit back around 1795-1804). Google their names, and you'll see why you wouldn't want them around. It'd be sort of like having velociraptors running loose a la Jurassic Park.

for me its the catholic curch. they have a lot of things to answer for.
ursula

Ah, yes...the Inquisition, et cetera.

M.Monroe. Since she was ever glamorous and i couldnt be around to see her...

Rick

Lyndon Baines Johnson - Warmonger, lying hypocritical shit. the first of what is now 9 ilegal presidential successors (the current 9th in succession and the the 2nd Texas shit-warmonger) to the coup d'etat that was completed on November 22, 1963.

the first of what is now 9 ilegal presidential successors...

I think correct legal processes were followed in the elections of all subsequent Presidents. Do you want to explain your claim?

Communist Russia never really had a plan for genocide, They never had a specific enemy, Stalin, during his rule had his purges which was against any enemy that appeared against his state.

My choice though for facist rulers would be be Mussolini, literally began facism and wanted had backward ideas for women sort of like Napolean's code. He was also a follower and didnt begin teh persecution of Jews untill Hitler told him to.

another would be Louis XVI, a disgrace to what his predecessors put beofre him.

Tom Arnold. What is he thinking! he's so annoying.

i have no non-favorites beside hitler, heydrich, and himmler.

some that othes have claimed as "evil":
Vlad dracul III- kicked ass, killed turks, standard of the day...
Pope guy who ordered knights to occupy the baltics- i like the teutonic knights, what can i say?
Stalin- made russia a superpower, the ends justify the means
Cardinal Richelieu- ends always justify the means

if youre going to talk about end justifies the mean, wouldnt you also mention Niccolo Machiaveli for inspiring rationalization.

Machiaveli was a bloody genius of the time.
Go Absolutism!

Whateva trevor!

Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, etc. were all capable at what they did, even though it was something we might not approve of, and while you can hate them, they were historically important and actually caused many good things.

My least favorite historical figure was Napoleon Bonaparte. How could the French let such an idiot command their country. He really seems like a qualified leader and a capable conquerer until...he attacks Russia. If there is anything you don't want to do, it's fight Russia in the winter. Seriously guys, Russians are independently spirited warriors anyway, and with the biggest country harder to completely take over than any nation ever (USA included). Geeze, what a moron...

Napoleon Bonaparte was the single dumbest leader I can recall. He was a conniving, impressive midget with an incredible grasp on tactics, but then he did something stupid. He attacked Russia. Russia is the single most difficult nation to take over anyway between its fiercely independent warriors and vast expanse terrain, but to end up fighting them in winter...Geeze, what a moron.

Hitler made the same mistake with Russia, he chose to go back on his Nazi Soviet Non-Aggresion pact and attacked, but he didnt prepare his men for the winter. I mean it didnt completely stop them, he made it to Stalingrad but it did slow him down.

I agree that this was also Hitler's single greatest mistake, and I think that it marked the end of his genius streak and marked the beginning of his insanity. Also, sorry about the twin posts, my computer screwed up and deleted the original on my screen. I figured it didn't work. Anyway, Napoleon just didn't know his limits, while I think Hitler was maybe too crazy to care.

I love the civil-war... and i am from tthe south with southern roots.. and i still liked the Northern morals, hmm. and My great uncle x6 was a Confederate Brigadere general for the 14th Louisiana Infantry..brig.gen. ZEBULON YORK..hes my figure in history .. even tho I like the North, but WOHOO

Napoleon Bonaparte was the single dumbest leader I can recall. He was a conniving, impressive midget with an incredible grasp on tactics, but then he did something stupid...Geeze, what a moron.
Um...no, Napoleon is acclaimed as one of the greatest rulers of all time, and the last of the open-minded Enlightened monarchs. His idea of a unified Europe under his enligtened rule was the single greatest idea since Charlemagne's concept of the Holy Roman Empire.
The more conservative powers brought him down because they could not see the truth.
Vivent L'Empreur!

An acclimation is far from a definition. He would have done allright if not for the inflated view he had of his tactical capabilities. He thought he could take them all, and he was wrong. If he had thought a bit harder, planned a bit longer, maybe we'd all be speaking French right now. But, we're not.

Edward Teach--i.e. Blackbeard.

george Washington His attack on a peaceful French diplomatic mission instigated the French Indian War that cost dearly in military, Indian and other civilian casualties.

Geistkiesel

Cortez. Something like that.
I think he was the guy who came into Mexico and killed off the natives for Spain. That's just wrong

george Washington His attack on a peaceful French diplomatic mission instigated the French Indian War that cost dearly in military, Indian and other civilian casualties.

Geistkiesel
F&I war had already begun, reagardless. The F&I war was part of the SYW. In that war, it was France, Austria, Russia, Saxony, & Spain against UK & Prussia. France & UK were at war before Washington did that attack on the frog diplomat.

Anti-Hero of History // Maximillien Robespierre...hypocrite, savage, contentious and largely backward.

can I say Paris?

NO, not the place, the person who shot Achilles in the Ankle with an arrow guided by Apollo.

though, I DO like Philoctetes for killing Paris ;)

Paris was the one who started Troy...glad he's dead...

Anti-Hero of History // Maximillien Robespierre...hypocrite, savage, contentious and largely backward.


...Can you name a leader that HASN'T been like that????

...Can you name a leader that HASN'T been like that????

He was a hypocrite, claiming he was acting for the revolution, yet portrayed all the hallmarks of a counter-revolutionary -- killing without justification, hypocrisy -- traits of an authoritarian. The fact he was a shitty public speaker and had a tendency to hibernate at the worst of times pretty much accentuates this.

F&I war had already begun, reagardless. The F&I war was part of the SYW. In that war, it was France, Austria, Russia, Saxony, & Spain against UK & Prussia. France & UK were at war before Washington did that attack on the frog diplomat.

Regarding George Washington firing on a peaceful Fench Mission, Geo. Washibgtons action certainly had an affect on the war, at least as to accelerating it. GW was in a British uniform at the time and claimed, as a rationale for firing on the the French was that they were "skulking"
and the French claim for "diplomatic immunity " was a pretense. GW was 22 years old(?) at the time, and a freemason.
The piece below copied from here. (http://www.philaprintshop.com/frchintx.html)

"Dinwiddie, hearing of new French forts on the upper Allegheny River, sent out a young Virginia officer, George Washington, to deliver a letter demanding that the French leave the region. This mission was, not surprisingly, a failure, but when passing through the region where the Allegheny and the Monongahela form the Ohio, Washington noted that the point of land at the junction was an excellent spot for a fort. In early 1754, in response to Washington's suggestion, the British started to build a fort there, Fort Prince George, but French troops soon arrived and threw them out. The French completed the fortification, renaming it Fort Duquesne. Washington, meanwhile, had been sent out with a contingent of troops to help establish British control in the west, and when he heard of the surrender of Fort Prince George, he set up camp in Great Meadows, southeast of Fort Duquesne. Washington received a report that a nearby French contingent intended to attack, so he launched a pre-emptive strike against the French camp. This was the first engagement of the yet undeclared French & Indian War. Though Washington won that engagement, he was soon defeated by a superior force sent out from Fort Duquesne, leaving the French in command of the entire region west of the Allegheny Mountains.

Perhaps we argue a minor point, but do you know if the "frog" contingent was diplomatic? Whatever the truth of trhat matter, neither the Grand English nor the frog governments acted rationally, each certainly aware of what activities are likely to cause and instigate warfare and what acitivities are more likely to end in a peaceful settlement.
GW was just another punkass politician sucking on his chain of command.
Geistkiesel :cool:

I think correct legal processes were followed in the elections of all subsequent Presidents. Do you want to explain your claim?

You think wrongly James R. You think that when the names appear on ballots that those names got there by legal means. Money talks and bullshit walks. LBJ you remember was a hater of JFK and after being president he was quoted. "I will not let american boys do the fighting for
asian boys". bullshit, but then LBJ had money also. Is it legal for a president campaigning for the office of president to lie to the people, to sabotage the investigation of the November 22, 1963 coup d' etat, to have others lie for him, to have press releases lie for him, to have those paid by him lie, steal and cheat, murder whatever for him? But then LBJ was justr another hulk playing his role in the treachery. James R you once denied a conspiracy in special relativity theory, remember? Do you realize that legally, the members of a consipracy need not not have communicated with each other, need not know of the other's names even before a conspiracy is legal in existence, defined? This puts you as one of the conspirators, a minor functionary to be sure, but a functionary within the bowels of the consopiracy nevertheless.

Go have a warm glass of milk and go back to sleep.

Pull your head out of your ass James R, but then you know what you are saying don't you?

You wouldn't know a legality if it was stuffed in your ass J.R. You are correct in at least one observation, I don't like you J.R.:You are a dishonest man, a liar, a fake, a fraud, a punk ass motherfucking piece of shit, because no one could possibly be as stupid as you pretend.

Geistkiesel :cool:

Is Paris Hilton a historical figure?

well, i don't like her...


at all

hm the least favorite figure? i wud have to say i have many.. mostly Nazis.. but of all i would said Heinrich Himmler, not sure if thats spelled correctly .. but if u think BUSH absuses power! HA! the SS picked upon the weak for certain pleasures. i still hate germany to this day. theres nothing about that shit-hole country stand out but parts of the Berlin wall used in buildings. they have stupid traditions.. except Oktoberfest i will give them credit. since when has germany EVER been involved in international affairs since WW2 if you know any u can tell me.. but to this day those women r still the ugliest women ever. im not even going to give that country a chance. just like france. they dont even deserve being talked bad upon. sorry for the subject change, just felt like a little country bashing
:)

fuck u geistkiesel :cool:

Definitively, the inventor of the television. I don’t know who it was, but he gave us the strongest drug that alienated our minds. Could’n he invent an instant translation machine, or a guessing loto numbers, or maybe a tablete against stupidity ?

He was a hypocrite, claiming he was acting for the revolution, yet portrayed all the hallmarks of a counter-revolutionary -- killing without justification, hypocrisy -- traits of an authoritarian. The fact he was a shitty public speaker and had a tendency to hibernate at the worst of times pretty much accentuates this.
Again, pretty much most leaders are like that. They lust for power, and destroy anyone or anything in thier way to that power.

Sawney and Elizabeth Bean and their clan of cave-dwellers; if you don't know who they are, ask any Scotsman.

Nero...simply because he was a twat

No, nero wasn't that horrible of a ruler. He was not as bad as he's made out to be. Most of the "evil incarnate" bullshit comes from those that hated him, and those that he persecuted. Biased sources. He actually helped people himself, when rome caught fire. He was out there, on the front of the disaster, helping his people.
Constantine killed more people and caused more division in Rome than Nero ever did.

Nero manipulated people a lot including the christians but he indirectly has a large part to play in the popularity of christianity, whether that is good or bad is anyone's opinion. All great figures whether good or bad are simply too large for me to have a least favorite. I would modestly say Stalin, at least hitler had a dream

[QUOTE=cosmictraveler]Joseph Stalin

Death toll
About one million people were shot during the periods 1935-38, 1942 and 1945-50 and millions of people were transported to Gulag labour camps. In Georgia about 80,000 people were shot during 1921, 1923-24, 1935-38, 1942 and 1945-50, and more than 100,000 people were transported to Gulag camps.
..... [/quote
I'm afraid that without draconian measures Stalin is famous for (despite obvious exaggeration of death toll in your post) Slavic and many other people would have been ashes by now. Extraordinary times require draconian measures. It's easy to be a great humanitarian sitting in front of PC screen.

I know a lot of wrong's been done because of christianity, but is Jesus any worse than Mohamed or Budda in that way?


I know I'm answering this very late (quoting from page 1) but anyways..

Maybe, maybe not. He's definatly worse than budda, because budda has never affected me in any ways (I live in an european country) mohammed on the other hand is causing big troubles still today.. Or at least the religion he supports does!

I think I'd rate mohammed and jesus equal.

um i think that that Pol POt is the worst, jsut becasue he was so gay

William Biddlesworth....faceless bureaucrat, alphabetizes mortgage defaults somewhere in London....prolly.

William Biddlesworth....faceless bureaucrat, alphabetizes mortgage defaults somewhere in London....prolly. how banal is evil.

Ivan the Terrible - The guy fried people in giant frying pans!!!

Sawney and Elizabeth Bean and their clan of cave-dwellers; if you don't know who they are, ask any Scotsman.
The topic of Sawney Bean came up in conversation with some friends today, and I recalled that he had been mentioned in this thread.

Now, what I want to know is this: Do Scots REALLY believe this fantastic story? Do they not find it beyond belief? Are they just trying to fool simple Sassenachs and others? Or do they really believe there is some historic foundation for the story?

What does it say about the lurid imaginations of Scots that they invent tales of this sort!!!

Sawney and Elizabeth Bean did exist, actually--they were tracked down and apprehended (after eating people for 30 years) in early 1435, and executed without trial at the Tollbooth in Ediburgh in March of that year. James IV was the King of Scotland at the time, and he personally led about 400 men across from Edinburgh to catch these bastards.

Sawney and Elizabeth Bean did exist, actually . . .
But Xylene, how do you KNOW??? Are there contemporary records? When is the story first recorded? Did they leave a recipe book? Are you not a jot suspicious of such a tale?

I should like to hear the views of others.

But Xylene, how do you KNOW??? Are there contemporary records? When is the story first recorded? Did they leave a recipe book? Are you not a jot suspicious of such a tale?

I should like to hear the views of others.

I assume there are contemporary records--I first read about the Bean clan in the book "historical mysteries" about 30 years ago. The Scots are very good at keeping records. Also, try to Google Bean Clan Cannibals and see what you come up with.

There's so many! Figures traditionally recognized as good like Abraham Lincoln was actually useless in my eyes because he barely cared about slave rights and the south would be better off gone anyways.
Then there is Robespierre, so hated, but he tried to ban religion, and epitomized my desire for revenge against the stupidity of the church, and similar reactionaries. Good!

My most hated living is Osama bin Laden, and only a little part of that has to do with 9/11. He is a despicable spokes-alien of the terrible Sharia law system. I'm a liberal and stereotypically should sympathize with Islam but I do not. They treat their people as disgustingly as our own Westboro Baptist Church. But on a ubiquitous, national, continental level.

Historically, I hate Saint John Chrysostom. Another terrible man, but, of course, regarded as a saint by the catholic church like all good racists and hate-inspiring jackasses.

Anyone called 'The Great'...as in Alexander the Great, was probably only great at slaughtering people.

commies :D

Freud

Nonthinking elitist bastard, whose own desire to fuck his mother and kill his father colored his every thought. More time has been wasted on useless thought based on his personal demons and then inhumanly applied to humanity than I can really fathom.

Perhaps Plato's upbringing simply didnt describe slavery as nasty at all...


Slavery is the strong exploiting the weak. That's called....nature. If slavery is nasty then just about everything is nasty.