The Evil of "The End Justifies the Means"


Contents:





adsbygoogle1

Questions and Answers

Question: How do you know Trumps working with Putin?? ..

Answer: ..."...Ask the author of Video Youtube .... Ask, X22Report Q, Q+... ask POTUS ..... Also how do you know what RT and other MSM says is truth or not ????? ...

Remember this when go to web: "The right to speech also include the right to "NOT LISTEN, NOT READING, NOT ANSWER". ... But I am sure MSM and RT 90% lying, disinfornation ... look at Mrs. Madam President in 2016... and all the fake news in the past .... Basically, Social Media is better than MSM ... Why? learn basic of human being: idealist vs realist ... disinformation vs misinformation .... " ...≺≺ more / less ≻≻

Mostly, there are two kinds of human beings .... (it is better to be in middle )

The one driven by the mind and tend to rational, logic, plans, over-confident ... It is the idealists, socialists, globalists they believe they can express everything by words, fix any problem, change everything, establish human law overdrive the natural law/divine law, rule the world by the rational mind .... Idealists with the impulsive beautiful dream and the very logic of the minds always initialize violence, wars because they cannot tolerate the difference ... Their mind do not allow them to stop thinking, dreaming, doing something .... They are very confident and always go by the End justify the Mean. Their mind make them to believe they know everything, always right .... look at socialists, communists globalist Obama, Hillary, Clinton, Journalists, .... They really do not know the limitation of human beings and the illusion of the mind ...They have no fear, no god, no karma, no ethics, ....."

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=617813478570006&id=100010240777404

*** How do you know history is a lie ???

WAR AND PEACE
By Leo Tolstoy (1869)
Translated by Louise and Aylmer Maude

" History is the life of nations and of humanity. To seize and put into words, to describe directly the life of humanity or even of a single nation, appears impossible. The ancient historians all employed one and the same method to describe and seize the apparently elusive-the life of a people. They described the activity of individuals who ruled the people, and regarded the activity of those men as representing the activity of the whole nation.

The question: how did individuals make nations act as they wished and by what was the will of these individuals themselves guided? the ancients met by recognizing a divinity which subjected the nations the will of a chosen man, and guided the will of that chosen man so as to accomplish ends that were predestined.

For the ancients these questions were solved by a belief in the direct participation of the Deity in the human affairs.

Modern history, in theory, rejects both these principles.

It would seem that having rejected the belief of the ancients in man's subjection to the Deity and in a predetermined aim toward which nations are led, modern history should study not the manifestations of power but the causes that produce it.

However, modern history has not done this. Having in theory rejected the view held by the ancients, it still follows them in practice...."

" Instead of men endowed with divine authority and directly guided by the will of God, modern history has given us either heroes endowed with extraordinary, superhuman capacities, or simply men of very various kinds, from monarchs to journalists, who lead the masses.

Instead of the former divinely appointed aims of the Jewish, Greek, or Roman nations, which ancient historians regarded as representing the progress of humanity, modern history has postulated its own aims--the welfare of the French, German, or English people, or, in its highest abstraction, the welfare and civilization of humanity in general, by which is usually meant that of the peoples occupying a small northwesterly portion of a large continent.

Modern history has rejected the beliefs of the ancients without replacing them by a new conception, and the logic of the situation has obliged the historians, after they had apparently rejected the divine authority of the kings and the "fate" of the ancients, to reach the same conclusion by anther road, that is, to recognize (1) nations guided by individual men, and (2) the existence of a known aim to which these nations and humanity at large are tending..."

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=381138652237491&id=100010240777404

*** What is the cause of WARs ... in Ukraine ... it is by one leader? by Putin by Obama by Markel ? one group ? .... The following message may make you re-think / doubt ... doubt is good, it help people to tolerate the difference ... WAR AND PEACE By Leo Tolstoy (1869) Translated by Louise and Aylmer Maude

" ...Biographical historians and historians of separate nations understand this force as a power inherent in heroes and rulers. In their narration events occur solely by the will of a Napoleon, an Alexander, or in general of the persons they describe. The answers given by this kind of historian to the question of what force causes events to happen are satisfactory only as long as there is but one historian to each event. As soon as historians of different nationalities and tendencies begin to describe the same event, the replies they give immediately lose all meaning, for this force is understood by them all not only differently but often in quite contradictory ways.

One historian says that an event was produced by Napoleon's power, another that it was produced by Alexander's, a third that it was due to the power of some other person. Besides this, historians of that kind contradict each other even in their statement as to the force on which the authority of some particular person was based. Thiers, a Bonapartist, says that Napoleon's power was based on his virtue and genius. Lanfrey, a Republican, says it was based on his trickery and deception of the people. So the historians of this class, by mutually destroying one another's positions, destroy the understanding of the force which produces events, and furnish no reply to history's essential question.

---------------------------

Writers of universal history who deal with all the nations seem to recognize how erroneous is the specialist historians' view of the force which produces events. They do not recognize it as a power inherent in heroes and rulers, but as the resultant of a multiplicity of variously directed forces. In describing a war or the subjugation of a people, a general historian looks for the causes of the event not in the power of one man, but in the interaction of many persons connected with the event. According to this view the power of historical personages, represented as the product of many forces, can no longer, it would seem, be regarded as a force that itself produces events. Yet in most cases universal historians still employ the conception of power as a force that itself produces events, and treat it as their cause.

In their exposition, an historic character is first the product of this time, and his power only the resultant of various forces, and then his power is itself a force producing events.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=381150165569673&id=100010240777404

*** Impartial? Believe in Judge, high education dogmatic professors, Dems, GOP, socialist, communist, globalist, Pope francis, Putin, Trump, MSM leader black / white .... ???

google this: The theory "the Veil of ignorance" by John Rawls:

The absolute justice exists only if : .....

"..... no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like."[1] The idea of the thought experiment is to render obsolete those personal considerations that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation. The veil of ignorance is part of a long tradition of thinking in terms of a social contract. The writings of Immanuel Kant, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson offer examples of this tradition......."

In short: "White always make law benefit white, black benefit black, man for man, woman for woman, Chinese for Chinese, Mexican for Mexican., Muslim for Muslim, DEms for dEMs, GOP for GOP ...

Also an individual can sacrifice the national benefit for his/her race, sacrifice race for party .... For example, gay/lesbian can sacrifice the national benefit, the party, race for her/his gay/lesbian (Dems and Black do not know that Obama has to sacrifice Black for Democrat, sacrifice Democrat for DSA, sacrifice DSA for Islam...) Gay, lesbian will sacrifice nation, party ... for gay, lesbian benefit ...

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=345174175833939&id=100010240777404
...≺≺ less



abpros.us

Question: .... Would it have killed you to use any sort of punctuation so we dont have to read a 5 page long sentence?

ANSER:" .... It is automatically CC from Youtube, .... It is new communication for youtubers programmers ... Do not read line by line ... It summary the clip to help researcher know what clip talking about ... For example they can use search program to looking for the world PUTIN, Ukraine in 1 million videos youtube instead of listen to all of them .. It is the modern way for programmers to research all YouTube video ... ...≺≺ more / less ≻≻

For information + disinformation + misinformation + high low level readers... "The right to speech also include the right to "NOT LISTEN, NOT READING, NOT ANSWER". ... learn that before go to the web ... "

*** Fallacy: personal attack
..substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

*** Fallacy: Straw Man
..simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=391930801158276&id=100010240777404
...≺≺ less

Contents: