Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 491011121314
Results 131 to 137 of 137

Thread: If You Could Go Back in Time and Eliminate a Historical Figure, Who Would It Be?

  1. #131
    Senior Member
    feisty goddess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 @ 06:22 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    European-American, mostly Germanic
    Subrace
    Reduced Borreby
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Age
    28
    Family
    single adult
    Occupation
    College student
    Politics
    Capitalist
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Attila the Hun

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to feisty goddess For This Useful Post:


  3. #132
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, April 2nd, 2021 @ 08:55 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Albion.
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Age
    44
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    'anti-semite'
    Politics
    Republicanism, tradition.
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,811
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    44
    Thanked in
    37 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ampersand View Post
    Abraham, if he existed. No Abraham means no Jews, no Christianity and no Islam...
    I doubt it; such a remote figure from an obviously legendary antiquity is about as real as Deucalion or Scyld Scefing. Ditto with Moses and very likely Jesus as well.

    I'd eliminate Paul/Saul, Muhammad, and Karl Marx.
    'Militia est vita hominis super terram [The life of man upon earth is a warfare] (Job 7:1).'

  4. #133
    Senior Member
    Loyalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Last Online
    Wednesday, August 12th, 2020 @ 01:36 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    British Isles
    Subrace
    Keltic-Nordid/Atlantid
    Country
    Dominion of Canada Dominion of Canada
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Traditionalist
    Religion
    Christian
    Posts
    1,168
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    49
    Thanked in
    40 Posts
    There seems to be rampant misconception about the consequences of certain chrono-assassinations:

    -Killing Gavrilo Princip would not have prevented World War I; that conflict was the result of geopolitical conditions and inter-state tensions which had been building for years. The murder of Franz Ferdinand was simply the spark that lit the fuse, and if not for him, some other event would have incited the European powers to war.

    -Killing Churchill would have made no difference to Britain's aggressive anti-German agenda in the build-up to World War II. Certain elements in the British establishment, most of them Jews, had resolved to pick a fight with Germany. Chamberlain had no appetite for war with Germany, knew international Jewry forced a declaration of war over the invasion of Poland, and was consequently swept aside. All the while, the Jews and other powers-that-be in the United Kingdom had been shopping around for someone who would more easily bend to their will for personal gain. They were fortunate to find a relentless self-aggrandizer like Churchill to realise their agenda. Had it not been him, another candidate would surely have popped up. The only upside I can think of is that perhaps a substitute would have lacked Churchill's charisma and ability to inspire national resistance, possibly encouraging the British to sue for peace.

    My candidates for retroactive elimination are as follows:

    -King Louis XVI, in his stead sitting a Monarch better suited to handle the crisis in France at the end of the 18th century, thus averting the French Revolution, the ideas of which, exported across Europe and the Americas, sent Western civilisation on the course to ruin it continues on today. Maybe decapitating the revolutionaries, rubbing out Robespierre, or even the guiding light of the Revolution and Enlightenment, Rousseau, would provide added security in that respect.

    -Karl Marx is another obvious choice, both in terms of the physical destruction wrought on nations around the world under the banner of Marxist/Communist revolution, and the cancerous effect Marxist doctrine continues to have on Western thought.

    -George Washington is an interesting possibility; not to offend Skadi's American posters, but I would much prefer a North America where British hegemony was not destroyed and replaced by a Judeo-Masonic republic based around destructive rhetoric about human equality. It is also quite possible that such an America would not be the racial nightmare it is now, shot through with Africans, "Great Wave" European ethnics, and Mexicans pursuing Reconquista.

    -Muhammad.

  5. #134
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 @ 11:35 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    German
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Posts
    1,053
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    Jack, Harry, Sam, and Albert Warner.

  6. #135
    Senior Member
    svartleby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 21st, 2012 @ 12:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    German-American
    Ancestry
    Germany, Scotland
    Subrace
    Baltid, Bruenn
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Occupation
    Anthropology Student
    Politics
    Fascist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    97
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    I'm sure its already been said, but Olaf Trygvasson or Saint Adam of Bremen. Maybe the old religion would have hung on at least a little longer.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to svartleby For This Useful Post:


  8. #136
    Providence Planter
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member


    Rodskarl Dubhgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Götar clan in England, Sweden, Finland and Poland.
    Subrace
    Nordic
    Y-DNA
    R-S6285
    mtDNA
    K2A5A1
    Country
    England England
    State
    Rhode Island Rhode Island
    Location
    Kentucky
    Gender
    Age
    38
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Blacksmith
    Politics
    Anti-Federalist
    Religion
    Posts
    3,704
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8,058
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    400
    Thanked in
    347 Posts

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonPagan View Post


    Zionism predates Adolf Hitler and you really need to read up on such things as the Balfour Declaration. Here's a quick sampler ...

    His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.

    ... and that was in 1917!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour...ration_of_1917
    Where do Jewry belong instead; the Jewish Autonomous Oblast? Are they Semites or Khazars?

    Quote Originally Posted by SaxonPagan View Post
    As for who I would eliminate, it would be William The Bastard, Duke Of Normandy
    I wish Harold had left Northumbria alone for Tostig and Harald to sort out, so William could have been dealt with. It's not like the others were sticking their noses in Wessex and couldn't care less about who sat in Winchester.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Aesthete View Post
    Goomer is happy off with the fairies


    As they say ignorance is bliss
    'Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil' kind of hysteria. This is a problem for both sides of the Hitler question, but I soberly dislike and like him for other, more incidental (weighing treason vs Autobahn) than hot button matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    My pick would be Simon Bar Kokhba, leader of the Jewish rebellion in 132 AD.
    His failed revolt was responsible for the scattering of the Jewish population all over Europe.
    You really should read Maccabees for some pure entertainment, especially from the Hellenistic POV. Funny how Rome told Judea they'd take care of the "Seleucid problem" and then Masada happened, lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    If I had to choose someone to kill, it'd be Jesus Christ.
    LOL, although I think the point is to get rid of somebody who wasn't. Too little, too late?

    Quote Originally Posted by Huginn ok Muninn View Post
    You know, I've noticed you have 467 posts here already and you've been here just over a month. You average more than 13 posts per day. If you would listen and read as much as you post, you would be a lot more enlightened about the things you opine about. Do you really think it was Hitler's fault the Jews went to Palestine? You need to learn a lot about Zionism. Please read the following:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Zionist_Congress



    This was 1897, when Hitler was eight years old.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour...ration_of_1917



    So, you see, it was the Brits who did this, in exchange for Jewish influence in bringing the United States into WW1 against Germany. But you thought they were the "good guys," right?
    Zionism ideally benefits both Jew and Gentile, but not when Babylonian Talmudists refuse to repatriate along with their hard-line types, but instead hide behind Cultural Marxism. The same goes for Marcus Garvey and the Rastafarians as showing the way back to Africa, for it seems some want to have their cake and eat it too.

    Quote Originally Posted by InvaderNat View Post
    I agree, particularly because without him it would have been the Soviet Union who started WWII (as they always intended to invade Europe), meaning the Allies would have sided with Germany and eventually invaded and occupied Russia - thus destroying the Soviet Union and Communism/Marxism right there and then.
    If this had of happened then stupid left-wing ideas like Multiculturalism might never have happened.

    Alternatively one could always go back and give advanced technical and strategic information to the side they wanted to win.
    Germany made the first mistake of trying to destroy Russia by siding with the Reds against the Whites, only to face a worse enemy in the long run and tried but failed with NS to correct their own folly. Getting mixed up with internal disputes of other countries is always risky, but the Western Allies of WWI first sided with the Whites against the Reds and Germany only ended up vivisected at the end of WWII.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magni View Post
    I'd probably go with Oliver Cromwell.

    Every time I say his name I have the urge to spit. Most people here probably don't give two-shits about him? Being part Irish I have fairly strong feelings.
    Cromwell was a necessary English response to the Auld Alliance imposing itself upon the will of the People. Things would have been far different had Edward VI survived with Mary Stewart for his queen, as originally negotiated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feverfew View Post
    I don't know how to pick only one person.

    My top choice would be Muhammad, as previously mentioned.

    My second would be St Paul, as he is the one that really spread Christianity. Without him it would not have been a successful religion, just another cult. Plus he also changed the nature of the religion to make it more palatable to non Jews, and (along with Augustine), made sex seem like a negative thing to be ashamed of.

    I would also include William the Conqueror, and Oliver Cromwell.

    More contemporarily, I would like to nominate Osama Bin Ladin, Tony Blair and George Bush Jr for an early or earlier retirement from life.
    According to Gallilean carpenter Joshua ben Joseph, he wanted his fellow Nazarenes to go not into the Samaritans or Goyim, but only the lost ten tribes of Israel. Saul wasn't even part of his manic street preacher synagogue, but a shrewd businessman who out-argued Shimon Kephas, successfully convincing the rest that they needed his Roman citizenship to present their case to the Greeks of palatability for the general public, in the wake of bar Kokhba.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turin son of Hurin View Post
    The way he destroyed pagans was that he killed those that didnt submit to christianity. So he actually destroyed all the defiant genes in germania leaving only the more doclie and submissive to breed. Starting to sound like the christianity we all know and love yet? It depends what you think better is. Odin worshipers had a healthy attitude towards war where the strongest warriors returned home within a few months, weeks or that very night to impregnate the women. Christian wars have always separated the warriors form the women leaving the spineless behind to breed with the women. Christian warriorhood is ahouse built on sand . It's seems to preserving the african race quite well. They dont have jews breeding with their womenfolk i do enjoy downing the religion that has decimated our people yes translation: into a people of bullies(descendents of the christian police) and dociles (descendents of the people they allowed to survive) . yeah its going great.In 50 years it'll be brown. Say goodbye to it with him.
    Charlemagne was the Oskar Schindler of yesteryear, the Righteous Germanic who became a "made man" for the Tiberian Mafia and sold out his own folk for personal aggrandisement. All it took was some old transvestite dangling the promise of Italy for the scion of Clovis to go further down the deep end of making France "first daughter" to the Vatican/Exarchate of Ravenna in the hope of Papal supremacy/independence from Byzantium; taking out the Langobards as with the Goths before and this betrayal of the Völkerwanderung prefigured Islamic invasions/occupations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    The English consciousness underwent a sharp (and negative) change around the 17th century. Universalism was never a core feature of early European Christianity. For the longest time, Europeans didn't really understand Jesus. He was spiritually alien to them. What early Christianity in Europe was, was simply a strange hybrid of European instinct and foreign dogma. The most interesting part of this relationship, though, was that instinct always predominated. It wasn't in the spirit of Christianity that the English burned Gypsies and Jews at the stake, or that the Inquisition broke Jews and Moors on the rack -- it was pure racial instinct merely under the pretext of Christianity, pure nature at work. Europeans pre-1600 hundred were nominally Christian at best.

    Even the most devout had no true spiritual connection to Jesus, which is why time and again they acted in ways that from our perspective are so mind-bogglingly contradictory to anything found in the New Testament. But, like I say, universalism did eventually sink into the English consciousness. We see its ugliness in basically all literature between 1650-1850 (I generally count Defoe as the first true English moral universalist, although of course I haven't read all literature from this era to be certain). Brotherhood of all men was always propagated by the most devout of the Christians of this period, and evangelists were Europe's prototypical 'nigger lovers'. Wilberforce and the Amis des noirs fit the bill nicely. These were the first Europeans to truly 'get' Jesus, and naturally they represented a grotesque turn in the European, and particularly the English, French and Dutch philosophy on race.

    The main point, however, is that this pathetic lapse of will and natural connection to ourselves was something that became, something that hinged on the unravelling of a series of unfortunate historical events, and not something that taps into the core of all existence. Universalist morality isn't a conclusion every logical mind would arrive at upon meditation. It's not any kind of 'truth'. It's just an interpretation -- and a vile one at that. That's why, like I said before, the one and only historical figure I'd particularly like to murder is Jesus Christ.
    Slavers didn't feel that way and laws against slavery were initially for self-preservation, not out of Transcendentalist "feels". Furthermore, segregation/apartheid and progressive eugenics continued among sections considered bastions of bigoted fundamentalist Protestants like Baptists and Mormons into the present.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Aesthete View Post
    There are passages that warn against race mixing in the bible and which promote nationalism

    It is a matter of interpretation

    Contemporary interpretation are being used to promote multiculturalism
    Those biblical quotes are all Semitocentric, as the Gentile Philistines were just defending themselves from o.g. Zionism. If Philistines mixed with Canaanites, that would be even more ironclad excuse to justify, based on the episode with Noah.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arditi View Post
    Abraham. I means, if there was no Abraham, there would be no jews. No jews means no Marx, no Communism, no Multiculturalism and no problems.
    Marxism is the fourth Abrahamic religion:

    http://dharmacivilization.com/2012/1...on-abrahamism/

    Marxism destroyed Aryan faiths in Asia, as its Abrahamic predecessors destroyed our religions in Europe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feyn View Post
    I have thought about this for quite a while, and read the thread doing so. Interesting read ^^ But i think most choices you made are way too obvious for such an interesting thought experiment.

    Strangely most people that come to my mind are saints : St. Patrick, St Paul, St Benedict..........

    Gayus Julius Cesar is also an interesting choice, without him the roman empire might have never included france and england. On the other hand the varus-battle might have never happened, and that was certainly an important influence in uniting the german tribes for the first time.
    Can i shoot him (to find out what happens) and then later decide upon the result if it was really a good idea and if not stop myself ?

    Constantine is also interesting, without him christianity would have probably stayed a small sect. Same rule then with cesar though ^^

    How about the father of Tut Ankh Amun, Amenhotep IV later known as Akhenaten? He made Amun the most important religion in old egypt. That religion had a major influence on all 3 monotheistic world religions. Without him we would have no islam, no christianity AND no jews, thats 3 for the price of one, can anybody beat that?

    How about pope Gregor the second for the inquisition ?



    I will think about this some more, i am sure i will find a few more interesting choices ^^
    If the Romans preferred to bastardise their culture, since absorbing the Phœnicians and Egyptians, we should not have to follow their example as it defiled us in the pursuit of Mediterranean booty. A conscientious objector like Julian failed to redeem his dynasty and trendy beggarly West Germanics were willing folk traitors to their independent East Germanic brethren.

    Quote Originally Posted by Elessar View Post
    Am I the only one who finds it absurd to want to kill historical figures because you don't like them?...
    The implications of eliminating such figures are immeasurable, as if killing Caesar (one of the greatest military commanders in history whether you like it or not) would stop the advance of Rome? I'm sorry but these people have a place in history that they have earned through their action. In the grand scheme of history, things were chosen to live, somethings were chosen to die. As Gandalf says "All we can decide is what to do with the time that is given to us"

    As a wannabe historian, I respect each and every figure of history, whether I appreciate their contribution or not. Because guess who got into the history books and who didn't?
    Neither would I opt to remove any of them if given the choice. Germanics ruling everything at all times doesn't sound too appealing.


    To which Tutankhamen thoroughly erased after his fathers death, back to the old ways when his Amun cult fell out of favor .
    If you would want to destroy Near East Monotheist religion, you'd be better off killing Zarathustra. He had a more measurable impact upon religious institutions than did Akhnaten.
    Accommodationism: what a "cope". When you start, where do you stop?

    Quote Originally Posted by Auricomous View Post
    Woodrow Wilson is probably either the dumbest or most vile of all U.S. Presidents... he is the one who signed over our national economic sovereignty to private bankers, single-handedly opening our country to the vile usurpers that are now raping the constitution and harvesting the wealth of our nation! I would kill him... Although, I am not sure that it would do much more than delay the inevitable...
    Wilson was hardly the first, but at least he understood European ethnic nationalism and was against hyphenated Americanism along with practically being a Klansmen Stateside, which is more than could be said of others since. Generally, Democrats were better during the Manifest Destiny period, but losing the Civil War should have finished them off like the Whigs before.

    Quote Originally Posted by feisty goddess View Post
    Attila the Hun
    If Attila never invaded Germany, it would not have likely resulted in a Teutonic dependency upon Roman establishmentarianism as the seemingly main alternative. The insult to injury was swallowing Judaism For Gentiles, being passed on like a pandemic, but I don't think it would have been as bad with Olympian religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I doubt it; such a remote figure from an obviously legendary antiquity is about as real as Deucalion or Scyld Scefing. Ditto with Moses and very likely Jesus as well.

    I'd eliminate Paul/Saul, Muhammad, and Karl Marx.
    How can you state that whilst calling yourself Roman Catholic? For myself, I don't doubt the existence of those individuals, only lack interest in their relevance to Germanic society, apart from Scyld Scefing and it's shameful that we've been beaten down to follow him into obscurity whereas the rest appear more on the mental radar, accompanied by others to whom they're more native.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loyalist View Post
    There seems to be rampant misconception about the consequences of certain chrono-assassinations:

    -Killing Gavrilo Princip would not have prevented World War I; that conflict was the result of geopolitical conditions and inter-state tensions which had been building for years. The murder of Franz Ferdinand was simply the spark that lit the fuse, and if not for him, some other event would have incited the European powers to war.

    -Killing Churchill would have made no difference to Britain's aggressive anti-German agenda in the build-up to World War II. Certain elements in the British establishment, most of them Jews, had resolved to pick a fight with Germany. Chamberlain had no appetite for war with Germany, knew international Jewry forced a declaration of war over the invasion of Poland, and was consequently swept aside. All the while, the Jews and other powers-that-be in the United Kingdom had been shopping around for someone who would more easily bend to their will for personal gain. They were fortunate to find a relentless self-aggrandizer like Churchill to realise their agenda. Had it not been him, another candidate would surely have popped up. The only upside I can think of is that perhaps a substitute would have lacked Churchill's charisma and ability to inspire national resistance, possibly encouraging the British to sue for peace.

    My candidates for retroactive elimination are as follows:

    -King Louis XVI, in his stead sitting a Monarch better suited to handle the crisis in France at the end of the 18th century, thus averting the French Revolution, the ideas of which, exported across Europe and the Americas, sent Western civilisation on the course to ruin it continues on today. Maybe decapitating the revolutionaries, rubbing out Robespierre, or even the guiding light of the Revolution and Enlightenment, Rousseau, would provide added security in that respect.

    -Karl Marx is another obvious choice, both in terms of the physical destruction wrought on nations around the world under the banner of Marxist/Communist revolution, and the cancerous effect Marxist doctrine continues to have on Western thought.

    -George Washington is an interesting possibility; not to offend Skadi's American posters, but I would much prefer a North America where British hegemony was not destroyed and replaced by a Judeo-Masonic republic based around destructive rhetoric about human equality. It is also quite possible that such an America would not be the racial nightmare it is now, shot through with Africans, "Great Wave" European ethnics, and Mexicans pursuing Reconquista.

    -Muhammad.
    If Churchill was such a Jew lover, then why not Princip who started the war rather than simply seizing upon a situation for power politics as Anglo-American domination of Europe was the PM's only objective?! Louis XIV and Napoleon were the problems for Germanics, not Washington who refused to play useful idiot for the French like Scots did for hundreds of years.

  9. #137
    Senior Member
    Emma of Normandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Last Online
    2 Days Ago @ 06:41 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    England, Germany
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    North Carolina North Carolina
    Location
    Piedmont
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Occupation
    Librarian
    Politics
    Conservative, nationalist
    Religion
    Anglican Church in North America
    Posts
    106
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    82
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    116
    Thanked in
    67 Posts
    Lyndon Johnson, who betrayed his own life's work to seal in the conquest of the United States by non-European races.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Emma of Normandy For This Useful Post:


Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 491011121314

Similar Threads

  1. Which Historical Time Period Are You Most Interested In?
    By Northern Paladin in forum History
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Sunday, December 6th, 2020, 10:53 PM
  2. Which Historical Figure Does Aragorn Best Embody?
    By Ediruc in forum Literature & Book Reviews
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Thursday, September 9th, 2010, 06:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •