MEJTML =
Marxist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar
Vic Biorseth, http://www.Thinking-Catholic-Strategic-Center.com
Whenever your mouse passes over or pauses on the sarcastic-editorial abbreviation MEJTML, anywhere in the Thinking Catholic Strategic Center website, the words Marxist Ends-Justify-The-Means Liar should pop up in your browser's navigation bar, so you don't need to actually click on it every time just to see what it means. Just put your mouse on it without clicking, and look at your navigation bar. (Use your browser's Back button to return.)
(Note: Once upon a time, this rollover-link code was universal, and it would work everywhere. But systems, browsers, add-ons, firewalls, third-party blockers and filters, changes and upgrades wait for no man. Today there is a hugely diverse set of combinations of hardware and software out there accessing the internet. If the rollover-link feature doesn’t work for you, try tweaking or temporarily turning off your popup-blocker and/or cookie suppression. Once you get it to work, you need to experiment with your system security settings to get the exact security level you want. Everything is a compromise of some sort, and the required setting changes may not be worth it for you just for this one feature on just this one website.)
You show me a Marxist and I'll show you an ends-justify-the-means liar.
All Marxists are liars. Marxists have to be liars; being a liar is virtually a definitive characteristic of being a Marxist. Lying is a requirement of being a Marxist. The ultimate goal of the Marxist is to move all of society toward or into Communism; that “worthy” goal is the supposedly noble “End” that justifies, in the mind of the Marxist, any “Means” at all that may be applied to achieve it. Historically, these “Means” have included mass deportations, mass movements of whole populations, and even mass murder.
Again, let’s look at the three pithy sayings of the typical Marxist temporarily useful idiot, the future would-be Marxist bureaucrat, and the potential future Marxist dictator, all, on their chosen path toward the ultimate twin goals of the destruction of Capitalism, and the rise to supreme Marxist power:
- The Ends Justify the Means.
- You Cannot Make and Omelet Without Breaking Some Eggs.
- Shut Up and Get On the Cattle Car.
Twentieth century European and Asian history is loaded down with records of Marxist collectivization and mass-movements of whole enslaved peoples on cattle cars to wherever “The Party” (but really, the Dictator) wanted them all moved. (Note that workers are people, and that makes people part of the means of production that need to be collectivized and redistributed.) Untold millions were simply murdered to achieve the ends of Marxism, because, after all, you cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs. These three sayings are as close as you can come to identifying a motivational collective ethos that drives atheistic and materialistic Marxism.
Question: How do you know when a Marxist is lying?
Answer: When his mouth is open and words are coming out.
The word of any Marxist is worthless and not to be depended on. Make no contract with any Marxist, for their signature signifies nothing.
The Ends Justify The Means is their only guide for life.
This is an alien, purely worldly ethos that confronts America.
Reference Material
Return to Web Site Log (Blog) page
Return to HOME PAGE
Build/Host/Maintain Your Own Personal Website using SBI! (Advertisement)
Comments
Date: Fri Sep 02 05:50:29 2011
From: David
Email:
Location:
Comment:
Isn't it funny you preaching the 'ends-justify-the-means'of Marxism when the US massacred many hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they used that same philosophy as justification for their actions ?!
Date: Fri Sep 02 06:52:36 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:
David:
We didn’t start that war; it was thrust upon us by the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Anyone who thinks he might not like the outcome of an all out war should not start one. The way I see it, we had two possible options other than using the newly developed atom bomb.
- We could have simply invaded the Japanese mainland and expended the estimated multiple millions of American lives and the untold number of Japanese lives required to finish the fight.
- We could have surrendered, and then watched Japanese soldiers playing their happy game of bayonet toss-and-catch with American babies, as they did with so many others.
Which would your preference be?
Regards,
Vic
Date: Fri Sep 02 07:51:57 2011
From: david
Email:
Location:
Comment:
Vic,my preference would be ANYTHING so long as it doesn't annihilate a whole generation of Japanese. There are ways to go about it. America's military might was far more superior to the Japanese one, and you can always force a country into submission. There is never any justification in wiping out a whole generation of people just so you can end the war quickly. This is the danger of the 'arms race'.The Americans wanted a quick solution and victory to the war.It was politically motivated.
Are Japanese that scary that they had to be nuked?.
America could have ended that war in a very different way..It didn't have to end in that fashion..
Date: Sat Sep 03 07:14:39 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:
David:
Annihilate a whole generation of Japanese? Excuse me? I don’t know whether you were miss-educated into that concept or you just made it up. There were survivors of Hiroshima and survivors of Nagasaki who were close enough to ground zero to have seen the parachute coming down before to bomb went off. There were many survivors who wrote and lectured about it for years and years; some of them are still with us. And – I’m not sure about your knowledge of geography – there were, after all, many, many Japanese cities other than those two.
I’m afraid we will never agree on this. There was, indeed, justification for the act. It’s easy for you to sit back and armchair-quarter-back that war, but it was quite a bit more desperate than you seem to think it was. We could have lost it; we almost did. We were not in a position of being a lone super-power against a tiny defenseless enemy; we got to the superior military position we were in during the closing days of the war only by the relentless shedding of vast amounts of American blood and American capital. It was a desperate war.
There is another factor you are obviously not aware of, in your naive pacifism and let’s all be nice approach to facing an enemy who is out to destroy you: The word surrender was not in the Japanese lexicon. They would not surrender. In horrendous battles, in campaign after campaign, island after island, the number of Japanese prisoners taken alive was miniscule in comparison to any other enemy. This was a level of military fanaticism only comparable to Jihadists.
The decision to use the bomb was not so much The Ends Justify The Means as it was a choice of the lesser among evils. I don’t know how this discourse got into WWII when what this page is about is how Marxists lie. Of course, sometimes the ends justify the means in every day life. You study in order to learn, for example. What this page is about is the Machiavellian Ends Justify The Means, which means you begin the process with deception and treachery, because your real intent must remain hidden until it is accomplished.
Bottom line – Marxists – at least the ones above the lever of useful idiocy – lie. That’s what Marxists do.
Regards,
Vic
Date: Sun Sep 04 05:39:58 2011
From: David
Email:
Location:
Comment:
Vic, I must agree with a lot of what you said, however, would you not agree that at that particular time, Bruce Oppenheimer and others had just developed the atomic bomb, and were very keen to test it for its success. The Japanese incident only gave them the excuse they needed to test their product.
The Japanese bombing of 'Pearl Harbour' would have surely shown the desperation of them, but, as Americans are, they could not possibly comprehend a defeat in those circumstances. Are you in agreement with any of my comment?
Date: Sun Sep 04 06:18:04 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:
David:
Not quite; although it had just been developed at enormous cost and effort, it had been tested in Nevada. At that time it was very, very difficult to build a bomb. The project didn’t even begin until we knew it was possible, and that Germany was working to develop an atom bomb to use on us, and others.
The first two bombs, Little Boy and Fat Man, were all we had at that time. If Japan had not surrendered, we didn’t have another bomb waiting in the wings. It might have taken months to build another one. This was a very rushed project, with products going into production on the fly. There was no method in place to mass-produce bombs or even the products needed in making bombs.
The “Japanese Incident” you speak of – what was it?
I think you’ve got your dates mixed up. Although the Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, it didn’t really get going and produce anything useful until well after Pearl Harbor and our entry into World War II.
None of this changes the fact that Marxists are ends-justify-the-means liars.
Regards,
Vic
Date: Sun Sep 04 07:54:48 2011
From: David
Email:
Location:
Comment:
To be perfectly honest with you, I couldn't comment there. Perhaps all "Marxists" are, in your words, "ends-justify-the-means-liars". You obviously know your your stuff, I'll give you that.
Date: Sun Sep 04 19:42:50 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:
David:
Let me try to put it in a nutshell for you.
Marxism is a dressed-up Machiavellian plan to use deceit and treachery to assume a throne or a dictatorship. Anything that requires deceit and treachery, meaning betrayal of friends and allies, requires lying.
Machiavelli’s vision involved recruiting agent provocateurs and getting them to get into a society in order to disrupt it and cause chaos and disorder, and fully expecting, as reward for their work, to share in the rewards when the new ruler came onto the scene with force, putting down insurrections and disorder. But the ruler would slay even his own agent provocateurs, who caused the disorder in the first place, and the new ruler would be welcomed by the populace and honored for saving what was left of their property, wiping out the rioters and restoring order.
Recruit them; send them out to cause disorder; kill them all to restore order; ascend the throne. Very simple; nothing to it.
If you carefully read Marx’s masterpiece, the Communist Manifesto, you will see that it is, precisely, a very dressed-up version of Machiavelli’s plan. It has a corrupted and distorted version of history that leads the future “Useful Idiot” to fall under the spell of class envy, it points him toward a “perfect” Utopian Dream system (which is quite impossible) and re-establishes his sense of right versus wrong. It then calls him to begin, participate in or support violent revolution against authority – all authority; and against – believe it or not – even the very idea of private property. And they actually believe this crap.
The typical useful idiot is aware neither of the impossibility of the Communist utopian dream, nor of how he personally has been set up for slaughter, by the very one(s) who recruited him to the cause.
It is not possible to be a real Marxist and not be a liar. You cannot betray someone unless you lie to him to have him believe you would not betray him. The whole purpose of the plan involves betrayal on a massive scale.
Even the few, the head Marxists who know what the game is about, cannot trust each other, for each is a potential betrayer of the others, and they all know it. Only one can be on top. True Marxists cannot even trust each other, for they know that they are liars, cheats, traitors, and that treachery is their game. It’s what they do.
Does that help? Read the Manifesto, slowly and carefully.
You might also read Machiavelli’s The Prince.
Regards,
Vic
Date: Mon Sep 26 06:38:41 2011
From: David
Email:
Location:
Comment:
I have to agree with you, in every respect.
Humans are "unequal" and "different" to each other. We are competitive by nature, and everyone aspires to be something different, therefore, just by logic, it is quite evident to any person who is rational in their thinking, that this kind of system: Marxism, Socialism or Communism, was "doomed for failure"......thanks for the advice on "The Prince", I shall read it!
Date: Mon Sep 26 20:50:02 2011
From: Vic Biorseth
Comment:
David:
I bid you good reading, and good thinking.
Regards,
Vic
Please note the language and tone already established in this Website. This is not the place to stack up vulgar one-liners and crude rejoinders. While you may support, oppose or introduce any position or argument, your comments must meet our standards of logical rigor and of civil discourse. We will not participate in trading insults, and we will not tolerate participants trading insults with each other. Participants should not be thin-skinned or over sensitive to criticism, but should be prepared to defend their arguments when challenged. If you don’t really have a coherent argument or counter-argument of your own, sit down and don’t embarrass yourself. If you have something serious to contribute to the conversation, please keep it civil. We apologize to religious conservative thinkers for the need to even say these things.
|
