New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Evilest person in history (Hilter, Stalin, Mao excluded)

Inquisitor

Council Member
I want to hear opinions on histories evilest man or woman (no Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, since they get mentioned way too often, I want to hear some more original answers, thanks).

(I don't buy into most "postmodern critical theory" a la Foucault which merely attempts to slander or eviscerate any and every historical figure per the philosophical axioms of its own ideology and mindless repetition of the same, simplistic ad homenim fallacy ad nauseum, and reducto ad absurdism, more often likely to be lies to begin with, per the false logic, blind assumptions, and axioms of said logical fallacy and reasoning to begin with, but of course not applying the same theory to its own axioms, narratives, or figures such as Foucault, Derrida, Marx, Rousseu, Darwin,"evolution", et cetera...).

So please only choose historical figures more or less widely known for being evil in regards to some historical significance, not any or every famous person you have some gripe or grievance with (e.x. Obama, Bush, Regan, etc)
 
Last edited:
I want to hear opinions on histories evilest man or woman (no Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, since they get mentioned way too often, I want to hear some more original answers, thanks).

(I don't buy into most "postmodern critical theory" a la Foucault which merely attempts to slander or eviscerate any and every historical figure per the philosophical axioms of its own ideology and mindless repetition of the same, simplistic ad homenim fallacy ad nauseum, and reducto ad absurdism, more often likely to be lies to begin with, per the false logic, blind assumptions, and axioms of said logical fallacy and reasoning to begin with, but of course not applying the same theory to its own axioms, narratives, or figures such as Foucault, Derrida, Marx, Rousseu, Darwin,"evolution", et cetera...).

So please only choose historical figures more or less widely known for being evil in regards to some historical significance, not any or every famous person you have some gripe or grievance with (e.x. Obama, Bush, Regan, etc)
Margaret Sanger.
 
I want to hear opinions on histories evilest man or woman (no Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, since they get mentioned way too often, I want to hear some more original answers, thanks).

(I don't buy into most "postmodern critical theory" a la Foucault which merely attempts to slander or eviscerate any and every historical figure per the philosophical axioms of its own ideology and mindless repetition of the same, simplistic ad homenim fallacy ad nauseum, and reducto ad absurdism, more often likely to be lies to begin with, per the false logic, blind assumptions, and axioms of said logical fallacy and reasoning to begin with, but of course not applying the same theory to its own axioms, narratives, or figures such as Foucault, Derrida, Marx, Rousseu, Darwin,"evolution", et cetera...).

So please only choose historical figures more or less widely known for being evil in regards to some historical significance, not any or every famous person you have some gripe or grievance with (e.x. Obama, Bush, Regan, etc)
Neanderthalic Echoes of a Prehistoric Horror

Genghis Khan. But it should be noted that the thrill-killing Mongoloids easily adopted the psychotic bloodthirsty "religion" of Mohammed when Tamerlane led the bloodbath.
 

Inquisitor

Council Member
Neanderthalic Echoes of a Prehistoric Horror

Genghis Khan. But it should be noted that the thrill-killing Mongoloids easily adopted the psychotic bloodthirsty "religion" of Mohammed when Tamerlane led the bloodbath.
Supposedly Khan killed 40 million, more than Hitler, using only medieval weapons like swords, axes, bows and arrows.
 
Supposedly Khan killed 40 million, more than Hitler, using only medieval weapons like swords, axes, bows and arrows.
The Third World Is a Clear and Present Existential Threat to Human Progress


The Mongols were horsemen, as were their Comanche relatives. Their goal was to convert the whole world into a racetrack, destroying all human constructions and any humans who got in their way.

Historians usually provide three perspectives: (1) that they were heroes (John Wayne played Genghis in The Conqueror), (2) that they were no better or worse than the Romans and other White conquerors, or (3) that they were a subhuman species out to exterminate the fittest.

William Golding (Lord of the Flies) exhibited Post-Modern collapsing decadence when he treated the Neanderthal beasts as innocent flower children in The Inheritors.
 

Zam-Zam

Governor
I want to hear opinions on histories evilest man or woman (no Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, since they get mentioned way too often, I want to hear some more original answers, thanks).

(I don't buy into most "postmodern critical theory" a la Foucault which merely attempts to slander or eviscerate any and every historical figure per the philosophical axioms of its own ideology and mindless repetition of the same, simplistic ad homenim fallacy ad nauseum, and reducto ad absurdism, more often likely to be lies to begin with, per the false logic, blind assumptions, and axioms of said logical fallacy and reasoning to begin with, but of course not applying the same theory to its own axioms, narratives, or figures such as Foucault, Derrida, Marx, Rousseu, Darwin,"evolution", et cetera...).

So please only choose historical figures more or less widely known for being evil in regards to some historical significance, not any or every famous person you have some gripe or grievance with (e.x. Obama, Bush, Regan, etc)

Pol Pot is a likely contender.

And of course there is Caligula:


Emperors of ancient Rome were generally an unpleasant lot, but Caligula was the most sadistic, depraved and tyrannical of all. To be sure, he has some competition in Nero – who burnt Christians alive and kicked his pregnant wife to death – and also in the less well-known Elagabalus – who, during a very short reign in the third century AD, smothered his dinner guests with rose petals and is said never to have worn the same pair of shoes twice. But it is with Caligula that all the classic signs of the mad autocrat really come together.


Top of the list is sexual perversion. He is said to have committed incest with each of his three sisters, not to mention wearing out his long- suffering male lovers with his insatiable appetite. But this was backed up by a nasty line in capricious and ingenious cruelty – one of his dinner-time jokes was to chuckle to himself, then say to his guests, “Ho ho, I’ve just realised that I could click my fingers and have all your heads cut off.”

No less shocking to the Roman in the street was his megalomania. Imagine the reaction when he claimed he was a living god (and used to sit in a temple to receive offerings from his worshippers), or when he gave his favourite horse its own miniature palace and made it a “consul” – head of the Roman government.

Caligula was only the third emperor of Rome, reigning between AD 37 and 41, when he was assassinated, aged just 28. He was not a symptom of the decadence of a declining power. Almost as soon as their empire was established, Romans knew what it was like for one-man rule to go horribly wrong. And it’s an image of tyranny that we have inherited. When we look at the cruelty and excess of the Pol Pots, the Kim Il-sungs and the Colonel Gaddafis of our own world, it’s not hard to spot a little bit of Caligula in them all (François Mitterrand once joked that Margaret Thatcher had the “eyes of Caligula”).



Complete text: https://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-07-29/mary-beard-caligula-was-a-sadistic-perverted-megalomaniac-but-he-didnt-eat-his-sisters-baby/
 
Last edited:
Top