Does Alexander the Great deserve the praise we give him...

Does Alexander the Great deserve the praise we give him, or should he be thought of equivalent to Genghis Khan and other great destroyers?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/4cp9O53PXJM
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel 8&version=NASB
youtube.com/watch?v=XXimfemUKRM
scribd.com/document/38957045/Alexander-the-Ordinary
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Dark_Ages
study.com/academy/lesson/mongolians-and-their-contributions-to-western-civilization.html
sanskritimagazine.com/indian-religions/hinduism/hindu-kush-means-hindu-slaughter/
google.com/maps/place/Hindu Kush/@35.7191998,66.7035764,928347m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x38c264c5e08e1b37:0xb283fc048bbe985b!8m2!3d36.8922222!4d73.2633333
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripura_Sundari
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses
youtu.be/rkV2u2gNjOs
mixcloud.com/daniellgough/dan-carlins-hardcore-history-podcast-wrath-of-the-khans-1/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Nah, he was pretty great. He realized that Greece and Western Civ was an idea and not a race, then tried to spread the light of Greece to the world. OFC stormcucks don't care for him tho.

> might makes right " great destoryers" were right

The movie about him really liked to focus on his gayness.

I don't think he especially cared for pan-Hellenism, he was more interested in heaping glory upon himself. For example, the 70 cities named after him.

Still spread western influence though

All European conquerors spread civilization and development.

Mongolians didn't spread civilization because Mongols have never had civilization. Thats why Mongols are the only true "destroyers" in history. The only time a culture so inferior managed to become strong militarily but then couldn't really build an "empire" because they were so culturally and intellectually inferior/incompetent. So it became a glorfied slave ring where asians got to bang white womminz for a brief time and then collapsed as soon as their ONE competent leader died.

The Mongols were literally shit tier at everything except warfare.

>a (((hollywood))) production puts emphasis on the (((agenda)))

rly meks u think

oh and to make it worse then Mongol "empire" was so culturally void that when it collapsed the New Asian half breeds adopted FUCKING ISLAM to fill the void.

Mongols were an embarrassing failure in every conceivable way.

It's actually argued fairly well that the Mongols helped push Europe to what it became.

I must say that I'm jealous of his achievements. Conquering the known world by 30? Epic.

I have loads more respect for the conquerors/"great destroyers" that did it for themselves rather than using ideology or religion as a reason.

2400 years later, MONKEYDONIANS still be all like "WE WUZ ALEXANDER N SHEEEEEEEIT" and they get very butthurt if you dispute that "fact".

Philip II was unquestionably a proponent, as was Aristotle who tutored him. Alexander never wrote anything down so it's hard to know what his exact motivations were, but his governmental philosophy was in keeping with Aristotle's concept of the polis.

Homie conquered almost the entire "known" world in a 15 year span.
He fought the greatest empires of the time and fucking dominated.
He then raised massive cities and cultural works and pushed the principles of Western civilization.

Unfortunate he died in India almost entirely because of monsoon season. If he caught the poos during the dry season you would have seen him march into fucking indo china and beyond.

Alexander didn't rape a trillion women, OP.

Excellent book, my grandfather gave a copy to me.

Genghis took china and a bunch of grasslands

Alexander toppled empires

Do you think that he would have focused on pan-Hellenism, or the Orientalization of Greek culture (which he very publicly supported)?

Here's some things the book I posted claims the Mongols had a hand in pushing Europe with:

Astronomy, paper money, art, some type of democracy (such as localized power), Globalization (militarily), religious tolerance. Other stuff include low levels of discrimination (except of those who would not kneel, especially other steppe people), barely changed any local customs, rule by consensus, meritocracy, rule of law, Eurasian trade, built and protected trade routes, promoted universal literacy, international post system, widespread use of paper money, reduced torture in the penal system, belief in diplomatic immunity for ambassadors.

He pushed his troops too far, then took some strange route back.

why though? All empires collapse, people get old and are replaced by younger more energetic competitors. Power is a shitty thing to pursue. At least ideology means something when your on your death bed.

Alexander died too young and wasn't able to put in a proper power base before his death. So he was great short term but his long game was off. If he'd only had the time it would have stuck instead of fall apart after his death. Well there is always Byzantium.

Was there ANY indication he would have been a good ruler though?

The real Alexander might of created the "modern"
Mystery School Occult Shieeet.
The Oliver Stone movie sucked.youtu.be/4cp9O53PXJM
This( is) in a way;a better movie about Alexander.
John Huston the man who would be King.

Considering the legacy and influence he left when his empire was divided among his three generals, I'd say yes.
He changed the world as it was known then, and forever from then on. That as opposed to Mongols who conquered, spread a massive empire which ultimately crumbled, and otherwise didn't leave a lasting influence.

He was the promoter of faggot agenda which started when an oracle pronounced a hobo the smartest of them all, and religious faggots started learning from that random faggot, and he could teach nothing but lots of heresy and sodomy, since then gay mafia which surrounded him started destroying other schools and plagiatrying their discoveries, and if you read the gaylord of theirs, like symposium where he advocates paedophilia, or repuplic (which is actually named politics) it's some leftist bunch of crap, and no wonder state universities brainwash your children into leftists, because what leftists want is to give all the power to a bunch of useless clerks they are.
(Alexander was a student of Aristotle (who knows where he stole that work on logic, his own writings lack logic as fuck) and Aristotle was a student of Plato who was a student of Socrates, and all of them were massive faggots)

Yes. He deserves every bit of it, if not, not enough of it. Genghis Khan was notorious for waging out total war-tactics for those who didn't pay him tribute and become willing subjects. Alexander got bitchy if major cities didn't surrender to him, and if they rebel from him, but Genghis, and figures like him, were objectively more barbaric. The worst type of atrocity that Alexander inflicted to a defeated people, was executing a cities' nobles--maybe crucifying a few of the ring-leaders-- and selling most of the population of the city into slavery if the siege was particularly long and difficult (such as with Tyre and Thebes, or some of the Indo-Iranian cities he came across during his Indian campaign, where his army was becoming more particularly shell-shock and brutal to resistors). Even still with those, there's instances where he granted clemency to some of the people on the opposing side if they agreed to a premature truce, or were seen fighting heroically before getting captured.

Alexander was such a god amongst men that not only did he guaranteed to Darius that he would guarantee the safety of his captured mother and daughter in a parley correspondence, but his mother was said to have bonded with Alexander so much that she started treating him like a son. When Bessus betrayed and executed Darius, not only did Alexander gave Darius a full-honor funeral, but when he captured Bessus he ordered him to be striped down naked and forced down on four legs with a dog collar and leash on and presented in front of Alexander's army traveling by. He granted Porus autonomy after defeating him because of how bravely he fought against him. He grew so friendly with and entrusted with Persian nobles to his court that his Generals and Macedonian nobles worried that he was Medized. Can any of this be said about Genghis Khan or Atilla? Did they leave behind any major or significant positive cultural traits in the lands they conquered?

Pretty sure poopdick and even child SODOMY was already common in greece at the time. Even the Spartans practiced it,

knowing faggots bonds it most definitelye were inside jobs

You know this because all the chronicles you know belong to the same gay circle. They literally rewritten history to their own taste. And that's the circle christianity grew out of, which explains a lot.

had the great library jews burnt it down to keep goy dumb

Don't forget that Socrates were executed for molesting the youth (whatever interpretation of it you were given in school)

how is this movie about alexander?

isn't this about the jungle book writer guy?

the movie looks great anyways will watch

Expropriated all the books he could reach and collected them in one place, so the successors could easily finish it in one strike.

Maybe with age. 30 is a bit too young to dive head first into ruling an empire. Once he'd aged and got a lot more experience such focus and would have surely forged a hardened empire with little internal struggle.

Aristotle was his teacher. And he wasn't homosex, that's a modern jewish myth created to support the homosexualist agenda

wtf
funny how american school glosses over this

More honest. No need to declare some greater purpose than achievement. We still remember Attila, Ghenghis, and others for their conquests. Did Alexander spread Western Civ? Definitely. Did he use that as a reason to conquer everything? No, he did it because he could.

What did Alexander destroy? He spread Hellenism throughout the civilized world back then.

Genghis and Attila burned, butchered, and raped everything in their paths. They left nothing behind of any significance.

>It's actually argued fairly well that the Mongols helped push Europe to what it became
R1a and R1b are chink haplogroups so you never know

>What did Alexander destroy?
Avesta, for example. Then the great mistery of gordian knot. And knowing militaries, you can figure the rest out by yourself.

You don't give the Mongols enough credit. Look how hard they raped the most powerful/relevant Islamic powers at the time. They basically ended one of the golden ages of Islam, and the region never was able to recover.

Who was the greatest, Alexander or the Great Roman Emperors?

The Greeks and Romans (and probably Celts) had no conception for 'homosexuality'. Male-on-male sexual relations was so commonplace that they didn't really have a term for it, and it wasn't seen as 'effeminate' to fuck another guy.
Calling ancient Greeks and Romans 'homosexual' would also have been inaccurate, because most men still married and kept wives. Caesar and Alexander were both married men, for instance.

Entropy means ALL human organisations are transient. It's customary to attribute that to something other than entropy, especially when that suits an agenda.

he was a kike so history smiles upon him
its how it works

Now that I think of it Hitler is a modern day Alexander or Ghengis
Sweep across swathes of territory with military might, building a large empire, just to die and have that empire die just as quickly.
In the distant future when there is no longer the politics and muh feelings of it, will people see it that way?

His generals ruled over the territory for quite a long time, especially in Egypt.

Roman emperors/ ceasar would literally cry on the feet of Alexander statues

And that attitude shift is a probable reason of the inside-orchestrated refugee invasion, because a horrible ruler discriminates the government as an institution itself (which is a racketeering bullying criminal organisation, out of doubt. it's good when they get some decency, but hardly does it change their perverted nature. Let's pray genetic therapies will cure those sick genomes, let's pray it's not another bottleneck, those faggots have to get off the drugs, especially the bottled) so they decided to turn him in our minds into a NapoLeon (who, as a jew told me, was hired to get rid of passionate flesh which they had after the revolution)

>discriminates
discredits

so Alexander the Great actually makes an appearance in the bible in Daniel 8 300ish years before he was born.

The Ram’s Identity

20 The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia.
The Goat

21 The shaggy [u]goat represents the [v]kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king. 22 The broken horn and the four horns that arose in its place represent four kingdoms which will arise from his nation, although not with his power.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel 8&version=NASB

its one of the examples that can be used to prove the bible has a super natural origin outside space-time. it covers the start of the persian empire, its unification between Persia and Media, where it spreads too, its defeat by the Greek empire, and how it splits into 4 kingdoms

>5 While I was observing, behold, a male goat was coming from the west over the surface of the whole earth without touching the ground;

it even symbolizes how Alexander conquered in less than 10 years

there's a record of how Alexander recieved a discourse on how he was the large horn of the goat in daniel 8, Jerusalem was in his conquered territories.
>he was more interested in heaping glory upon himself. For example, the 70 cities named after him.
>8 Then the male goat magnified himself exceedingly.

seems to fit the prophile

>its one of the examples that can be used to prove the bible has a super natural origin outside space-time
it can only be used to prove that bible did influence those nations and thus could be the explanation of the Alexander's success: he was a prominent figure in the cult at that time.
First they got the spiritual power, over which they established the secular rule (it's just a guess and yet to be tested)
They used to consider poets prophets. But as a one, I consider us programming rather than predicting the future, or both, we see it clearly (the real one, not the ones who just can rhyme) and we sing for the progress, I wonder does accent set some musical tone we all as a family can sing and by this frequency organize as a mold-slime (we have different pasic frequency, different musical mode, by genes we're different musical instruments. Me as russian I feel it's natural to sing like this youtube.com/watch?v=XXimfemUKRM and to sing opera I have to strain my throat, asians sing in three tones and the highest of them I cannot do, I think because my tongue is wider)

I also read he was the one who taught greeks shave, to be like a girl, probably to make people forget that gods are mothers.
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
riddle me this, riddle me that

Actually he left a huge mark all the way to to Afghanistan look up the Greeco Bactrian kingdom.

>should he be thought of equivalent to Genghis Khan and other great destroyers?
Alexander almost exclusively slaughtered non-white subhumans. He was /ourguy/.

>religious tolerance
>reduced torture in the penal system

The Spanish inquisition happened 200 years years after the Mongols came

The 30 year war (Protestants vs Catholics) happened 300 years after

Then later still there was the witch hunts.

The only semi tolerant nation in Europe at the time was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Can you guess which of those had the most contact with the Mongols?

>the mongols were intellectually inferior
Booty blasted chink detected. The fact that the mongol invented horse saddle allowed them to conquer so well still has you gooks pissed doesn't it?

>Mongolians didn't spread civilization because Mongols have never had civilization. Thats why Mongols are the only true "destroyers" in history. The only time a culture so inferior managed to become strong militarily but then couldn't really build an "empire" because they were so culturally and intellectually inferior/incompetent. So it became a glorfied slave ring where asians got to bang white womminz for a brief time and then collapsed as soon as their ONE competent leader died.
They had freedom of religon and an empire that big is destined to fall Macedon fell pretty much the same way after the death of Alexander. Shatterd into pieces and soon the fragments fell and centuries later no one knew they were even there.

The Poles, yes. But most Russians were vassals to the Mongols for a long time and they were never very tolerant.

The funny thing is that in your picture the ratio of casualties is as if he was slaughtering whites mostly.

Seleucid Empire empire lasted for around 250 years, and Ptolemaic Egypt for 275. Those are both respectable.

>it can only be used to prove that bible did influence those nations and thus could be the explanation of the Alexander's success: he was a prominent figure in the cult at that time.

this was written during Nebuchadnezzar's reign which was a full 300 years before Alexander was Born. you're point is really fallacious considering the King of the Persians and the Medes (who is symbolized by the ram with 2 horns) also had to rise in prominence before this happened. the chapter in itself also goes into how that Rome will rise into power after the Greeks. quite frankly I don't understand what you mean, or are implying that "he was a priminent figure in the cult at the time"

>First they got the spiritual power, over which they established the secular rule

this is also pretty much completely wrong. Babylon ran an international bank that gave high interest loans to the persians and the medes, in which was the core reason why they invaded (Cyrus the Great is also mentioned in a letter that addresses him by name, and lays out his entire career in advance between Isaiah 44-45 150 years before he was born) the Persians did the same thing to Greece giving them high interest loans, which in tern led to greece invading persia, and the greeks gave rome high interest loans, which led to rome conquering the greeks.

>They used to consider poets prophets. But as a one, I consider us programming rather than predicting the future, or both, we see it clearly

I can perfectly tell you that there are beings that exist outside of space-time, and looking at all events both past and future have spoken to us in many scriptures, Mohammad, being degenerate trashbag and Jesus Christ the son of God born of a virgin both make appearances in the Hindu scriptures as well, and have their careers highlighted in advance in something that supposedly dates back to 3,000 BC Time literally doesn't exist in the 2nd heaven, or 5th dimension of string theory

>we see it clearly (the real one, not the ones who just can rhyme) and we sing for the progress, I wonder does accent set some musical tone we all as a family can sing and by this frequency organize as a mold-slime (we have different pasic frequency, different musical mode, by genes we're different musical instruments. Me as russian I feel it's natural to sing like this youtube.com/watch?v=XXimfemUKRM and to sing opera I have to strain my throat, asians sing in three tones and the highest of them I cannot do, I think because my tongue is wider)

none of this has absolutely anything to do with the nature of scriptures having an origin that exists outside of our universe.

riddle me this kiddo
what does john 1-1 have anything to do with the rumor that greeks shaved to be like a girl?

also I can clearly see you don't understand mysticism in any sort of fashion, because John is largely a book that appeals to mystics.

>What did Alexander destroy?

He burnt the Zoroastrian books. We will never know what was in them.

Only the race exists, only the race is the interest, nothing else exists.

Yeah but both Empires fell pretty much the same way. Mongols made a huge comeback with the Timurids but collapsed anyway.

>What did Alexander destroy?

What is Persepolis

What if organized religions is one big cult (gnawing on each other like uroboros sometimes) and they try to accomplish prophecy (bombing Damascus, for example) to be given the ultimate promise (beLIEvers are crazy, they believe crazy things sometimes) - just as christians try to show their god they don't know what's good what's evil anymore, so they can return to Edem. (as John Chrysostom taught:
> Suppose someone slays another in accordance with God's will. This slaying is better than any loving-kindness. Let someone spare another and show him great love and kindness against God's decree. To spare the other's life would be more unholy than any slaying. For it is God's will and not the nature of things that makes the same actions good or bad.
> weird picture
Iron age began when invention of iron allowed produce way more arms than before (which caused greek dark ages when they literally lost literacy)

I find it hard to be impressed by the 'great' conquerors of the ancient world like Alexander or Genghis Khan. The tactics and weaponry of the peoples they ran over were so abysmal it's hard to be impressed. Like seriously overrunning Chinese peasants or poos in India? It reminds me of when you see very young puppies that are so young their eyes are still all closed...and then one kindof blinks and can see and walks on top of the others

>what does john 1-1 have anything to do with the rumor that greeks shaved to be like a girl?
Images of gods are of clear face, because those are women. To usurp the spiritual power, faggots made shaved face into fashion, to make us forget that it's Mother who gives life.
Mother is the answer. It is the word which you knew from your first god and which was that word itself (so, as you can see, I'm quite aware of mystic side of that story, probably deeper than you ever were, not as if I wanted to get into these fields, but I had to go there for my research, I hope I do it respectfully enough, you're so touchy)

Alexander, The Ordinary

Alexander did not win any war on the Indian soil, he in fact lost to Porus, the king of Punjab, and had to sign a treaty with Porus in order to save his diminishing band of soldiers who were grief-stricken at the loss of their compatriots at the hands of Porus`sarmy, and expressed their strong desire to surrender.Alexander after winning many battles and defeating the Persian king, invaded India andcrossed Indus. Here he was joined by Ambhi, the king of Taxila. Ambhi surrenderedhimself to Alexander. He was enemy of Porus and wished to defeat Porus with the helpof Alexander. The facts of Alexander`s miserable defeat and his shattered dream at Indian soil havebeen avoided consistently by Greek historians and the same was perpetuated duringBritish regime. But the truth which is documented in many narratives of the Europeansthemselves presents a totally different picture. The depictions by Curtius, Justin,Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding thatAlexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to save his and hissoldiers` lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures in India.

scribd.com/document/38957045/Alexander-the-Ordinary

> caused greek dark ages when they literally lost literacy

You're referring to sea peoples? You are saying that the invention of iron weapons lead to the sea peoples invasions?

I don't know very much about this part of history, I only recently found it:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Dark_Ages

The fucker brought gypsies to Europe.

Persia was supposedly the strongest empire at the time Alexander took them on, with a fraction of the numbers.

Genghis really deserves your admiration because of his backstory. Irrelevant prince of the most backwater of the backwaters, to pauper, to ruler of a tiny tribe, to ruler of a huge empire. The northern Chinese at the time were under rule by a semi-nomadic type group that knew steppe warfare. Southern China gave them a bit of an issue, because they were smarter/stronger. He also took on the Khwarazmian Shah (which was very powerful) and fucked his world up.

Please don't use a Italian picture of Alexander the Great, he was a Nordic not some half nigger southern Eyetalian

>What if organized religions is one big cult (gnawing on each other like uroboros sometimes) and they try to accomplish prophecy (bombing Damascus, for example) to be given the ultimate promise

I do feel like this is a very fedora tier what if considering the context given was that beings exist outside the physical property of time are giving us messages.

>ust as christians try to show their god they don't know what's good what's evil anymore, so they can return to Edem. (as John Chrysostom taught:
> Suppose someone slays another in accordance with God's will. This slaying is better than any loving-kindness. Let someone spare another and show him great love and kindness against God's decree. To spare the other's life would be more unholy than any slaying. For it is God's will and not the nature of things that makes the same actions good or bad.

this ends up being unbiblical
JOhn 16
>2They will put you out of the synagogues. In fact, a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God. 3They will do these things because they have not known the Father or Me

Luke 9:51-56
51When the days were approaching for His ascension, He was determined to go to Jerusalem; 52and He sent messengers on ahead of Him, and they went and entered a village of the Samaritans to make arrangements for Him. 53But they did not receive Him, because He was traveling toward Jerusalem. 54When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” 55But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of; 56for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.”] And they went on to another village.

you know there ends up being a big difference between what the bible actually says, and what people teach about the bible. if you put the teaching you just posted against the bible it falls apart.

Most Westerners are familiar with the story of Marco Polo, the young, Venetian explorer who went on a grand adventure to China in the late 13th century. There he met the Great Khan, Kublai, and entered his service. During his years under Kublai's patronage, Polo introduced the Great Khan to European civilization, and the Great Khan, in return, introduced Polo to Chinese civilization.

Traditionally, Western historians have tended to describe the voyage of Chinese technologies to Europe as a purely European and Chinese affair. Like Prometheus stealing fire from the gods, European adventurers found their way to China and brought Chinese technology home with them. Yet this account overlooks a very important fact. None of these world-changing Chinese technologies would ever have made it to Europe were it not for the Mongols.

The Mongols reopened the Silk Road, connecting Europe to China for the first time since the collapse of the Roman Empire. More importantly, the Mongols conquered China before Marco Polo and his ilk ever got there. Kublai, the Great Khan of China, who introduced Marco Polo to Chinese culture, was not Chinese at all but rather a Mongolian conqueror. Thus, it is misleading to think that European adventurers took Chinese technology from China. It is much more accurate to say that the Mongols gave Chinese technology to Europeans.

study.com/academy/lesson/mongolians-and-their-contributions-to-western-civilization.html

>Images of gods are of clear face, because those are women. To usurp the spiritual power, faggots made shaved face into fashion, to make us forget that it's Mother who gives life.

lets not forget the female was separated from the male, which was originally androgynous in pretty much every single mythology, and not only that, she can not create life without the male half.

>. It is the word which you knew from your first god and which was that word itself (so, as you can see, I'm quite aware of mystic side of that story, probably deeper than you ever were, not as if I wanted to get into these fields, but I had to go there for my research, I hope I do it respectfully enough, you're so touchy)

bruh, you really don't know anything, the monotheistic creator of the soul is genderless just as the soul is.

Those contradictions are the rule of contradicting paragraphs, which keep religions irrational, and thus in domain of blind faith.
Both churches consider John Chrysostom being a saint. Though what else could we expect of institutions when we know who the prince of this world is supposed to be, though they wink "for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat"
So no wonder our elites tend to be satanist, because that's what those religions are on esoteric level, though there could be a even deeper level, where it all is the test, because we have conscience inbuilt.

Gypsies came north from the Hindu Kush to the west.

sanskritimagazine.com/indian-religions/hinduism/hindu-kush-means-hindu-slaughter/

google.com/maps/place/Hindu Kush/@35.7191998,66.7035764,928347m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x38c264c5e08e1b37:0xb283fc048bbe985b!8m2!3d36.8922222!4d73.2633333

>yin/yang.png
You definitely got the point. Male and female is essential division.. divination.. well, so I suppose guys used to withhold secular rule, while women were priestess, goddess, you know, they tend to that supernatural bs, but faggots don't see any use in females, so they usurp their rites.

>was originally androgynous in pretty much every single mythology
you don't know nothing, son
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripura_Sundari
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses
ever wondered why it's Evil and Devil so related to Eve and Deva?

Yes he deserves it, he was the ultimate production of Greek Classicism: erudite, brave, sophisticated, fair, etc... even if the bad sides followed him too.

He is in no way comparable to Gengis Khan though, sure he burnt a couple of cities (notably Persepolis) but persians were not really known for being nice and he was quite reasonnbale with the way he dealt with people he defeated, unlike Gengis who slaughtered something like 1/5 of the global population.

However I'm not really surprised Sup Forums doesn't like him, he was the first cosmopolitan, the first globalist if you want, even if it was not hateful or uprooted like the ones we have today.

well, it becomes quite obvious that he has not Known the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, (who teach the gnostics teach is the mother)

>Those contradictions are the rule of contradicting paragraphs
why don't you go ahead and explain to me what the "rule of contradicting paragraphs" is.

>which keep religions irrational, and thus in domain of blind faith.
pretty much everything becomes cleared up when you actually read the gospels yourself. the Catholic Church used to keep bibles away under lock and key, only let a few "ordained" priests read them, and killed anyone outside the church political system read them, and burned any copies that existed outside the church. Both Churches are quite literally the "antichrist" for they try to substitute themselves in Christ's place since Anti is a greek word that means "substitute, or to replace with" so the term antichrist means a replacement, or substitute for christ.

>Both churches consider John Chrysostom being a saint
both churches are wrong.

>So no wonder our elites tend to be satanist, because that's what those religions are on esoteric level, though there could be a even deeper level, where it all is the test, because we have conscience inbuilt.

the message behind Christianity is very simple in contrast to all the other world religions. in most pagan systems you sacrifice something to your god for favour, it doesn't love you, and you don't love it its a trade of power in the material realm. in Christianity God sacrifices his son to mankind, and the gift for accepting God's sacrifice is immortality and dominion over the eternal realms.

He was waaay too gay for me.

He had fair features and was the greatest General the West has ever produced. He brought Hellenic civilization from Macedon all the way to the borders of India and Egypt. Yes, deserves praise.

Well while he burnt Persepolis, he did build multiple cities and established trade routes. Keep in mind, the Mongols reopened trade routes also.

bro, I'm going to say this really simply, get the fuck off of wikipedia when studying religion and mysticism.

I wana know why Charles Martel doesn't get more praise, and why he's generally ignored in adaptations. Barely any books, no movies or TV series. Even tough he's perfect for it.

>Travels across Europe with his merry band of Mercs getting experience.
>Studies training and combat of ancient Rome
>Tricks the Church into funding an army
>He trains it like no army has been for hundreds of years
>Saves Europe from the Muzzies with a classic underdog battle, totally outnumbered he uses skill, planing and trickery to beat them.
>Founds an Empire that brings Europe out of the Dark Ages
>Beat people to death with a hammer so proficiently that he was named after it.

Seriously how many fucking movies about ancient Greek faggots do we need when we could have something about Martel?

> he has not Known the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit
to have known... it has some sexual meaning to it, doesn't it? sounds gay af
> why don't you go ahead and explain to me what the "rule of contradicting paragraphs" is.
It's a meme from runet, every religion has contradictions, and we suppose they're there for a reason (or by occasion, but the reason it worked, because truth is disputed and changed being alive, but lies is a dead body)
> in Christianity God sacrifices his son to mankind
Let's keep aside the fact that you don't know other religions very much, let me meddle with this one:
> “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give youthis testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”
The most beloved angel, sent to earth for his wish to enlighten humanity... (that's why elites are so luciferian, though pity they watch at Prometeus through exoteric christian teaching and adopt evil features instead of good ones)

youtu.be/rkV2u2gNjOs

mixcloud.com/daniellgough/dan-carlins-hardcore-history-podcast-wrath-of-the-khans-1/

You fucking retard, he was executed for being an agitator. He was redpilling the youth to their shitty situation while they were being ruled by imposed tyrants.

That's the official interpretation (but knowing greek liberties I seriously doubt it)

>
who the hell sees Genghis Khan as a great destroyer?
even the descendants of the people he conquered see him as a genius military leader

Mongols also put Islam in the stone age

>to have known... it has some sexual meaning to it, doesn't it? sounds gay af

you're an idiot.

>It's a meme from runet, every religion has contradictions, and we suppose they're there for a reason (or by occasion, but the reason it worked, because truth is disputed and changed being alive, but lies is a dead body)
here, you need this
>pic related

>Let's keep aside the fact that you don't know other religions very much, let me meddle with this one:
see this post >The most beloved angel, sent to earth for his wish to enlighten humanity... (that's why elites are so luciferian, though pity they watch at Prometeus through exoteric christian teaching and adopt evil features instead of good ones)

there is more than 1 morning star. but yes, thats generally the idea behind luciferianism, you take what is good and call it bad, and what is bad and call it good.

Mongolians never got close to Spain
the Spanish Inquisition was to get rid of the Muslim influence they were under for 500 years
Viets are pretty based though

Love martel, but Charlemagne was pretty shit

...