At the end the truth wins

What really means the quote "At the end the truth wins? ". Let us analyze one by one each of the words, end, truth, wins. In historical context.

At the end can mean only end of human civilization, for example due to overheated planet earth? Or if taking from example from history, it can mean destruction of Roman empire and its replacement with hundreds of barbaric kingdoms, ruled for 1000 years be mostly illiterate kings (except of Alfred the Great)? Julius Caesar as contrary to it could not only read but also write a history book, quite a valuable one, so could Claudius, Marcus Aurelius, etc. and of course Nero the poet+-)).
Or maybe the end means replacement of Napolean by restored Bourbons? Who were 16 years later replaced by  Louis Philippe, Duke of Orléans, himself replaced by Napoleon the third? Or end of WWII, that temporarely ended the European barbaric ideologies of mass murdering at least in the Western Europe. Oops, forgoten, in France and Italy the communistic parties, leaded by Stalinistic communistic spys almost won absolute majority in the democratically elected parliaments? By the way, the Christian Democratic party of Italy, with its mafioso roots was also nothing to be proud of. As to France they had also their Stalinist conspirators in the communistic parties. If to make a prediction, maybe end means the Fukuyamas joke about the end of history, or the Nazi kind of final solution implemented by the Nazis on the Jews. Or maybe the prediction of the end of European civilization due to depopulation from its original European people and its re-population with people from failed African and Muslim States?
As to the truth, we should know that the truth in politics and history is very relative term. Mostly it is the truth of the winners. The real truth is that the most successful leader of twenty century was Josef Stalin. He won all the wars he was involved in, imposed his regime successfully during his lifetime on half of Europe, enlarged the Russian Empire to its largest size, including to Eastern Prussia, and helped to impose his own style communistic régime in China, Vietnam, North Korea, etc.etc. When dying he could say to himself, i have accomplished most of my historical aims. The scientific communism and historical determinism was proven to be right. At the end the truth will win.
So by this i defined and explained not only the meaning of truth, but also of the victory. Who cares that non of the hundred millions murdered directly or indirectly by Stalin did not enjoy his great victories. Who cares that entire communities with rich culture and intellectual significance (like the Jewish communities in whole Europe were annihilated?). Who cares that intellectual developments, that could have taken place, if the intellectuals and their communities were not wiped out, did not happened? Who cares that if not Christianity imposed on Roman empire by Constantine, and the following de-legitimization of Greeco-Roman intellectual achievements by the Christian fanatics, maybe we would have industrial revolution already in fifth or sixth century, and didn't have to wait for it until the eighteenth century.
What is important, that the truth eventually wins.

The worst rule because they are the worst.

EugenR; The worst rule the world, because they are the worst.

GD; Not for long

EugenR; For ever

GD; What about  Non Violent Civil Disobedience ?

EugenR;  At the end the “Non Violent Civil Disobedience” is a human organization, and as such it will either die out, or in worse case will have an organizational structure in which the worst bullies will be on the top. There is nothing new under the sun.

GD; At the end the truth, that at the age of internet is a simple finger click away, will win.

EugenR: At the end the truth wins, the question is when and at what price. In between the lie and cruelty celebrates. Just remember the last century events (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Mugabe i mean Dr Mugabe, etc.). All of them are gone (except the least evil Dr Mugabe). Did you know Pol Pot studied in Paris? Don’t be upset by history but learn from it. And now you have the Islam fundamentalism, that is all about cultural and religious non tolerance, racism (Sudan, Darfur, etc.), legitimization of enslavement of the non Muslims, intellectual degradation of women, death penalty for apostasy (Under current laws in Islamic countries, the actual punishment for the apostate (or murtadd مرتد) ranges from execution to prison terms. Islamic nations with sharia courts use civil code to void the Muslim apostate’s marriage and deny child custody rights, as well as his or her inheritance rights for apostasy. Twenty-three Muslim-majority countries, as of 2013, additionally covered apostasy in Islam through their criminal laws.), etc.

GD; The real question is do we have less fear because we have more access to knowledge? Or more fear because the media has portrayed fear as the new normal? I am not sure that mass herd mentality works in modern society anymore. And that is how dictators ruled. The new fear is forced acceptance. It is worse. Or should I say financially forced acceptance.

AH; I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant. Take the example of Martin Luther King, Jr.

EugenR; Yes, they were in history few good leaders who won. Martin Luther King is among them, others are N.Mandela, M. Gandhi, V. Havel all of them won, but at what personal price. Two of them murdered, two served years in jail. And anyway after them came some scoundrels destroyed anyway their achievements. Still the strife for self evident justice (that’s what these leaders were after) must go on. But who are the new Mendelas, Gandhis, Kings or Havels? Those who came after them are at the best Obamas.

AH; It is a process. In the last 500 years from time of Galileo (who was threatened by his Church for telling the truth about the nature of the planets) to today there has been tremendous progress on a global scale. We with progressive values and committed to the path of love, must remember that darkness is also part of human nature (perhaps an essential part) and remain vigilant — and hopeful.

EugenR; I assume you never lived in a country where the government terrorizes its citizens. Try to express your truth in one of the terror countries, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Try to say there, it is wrong not to let women to have education (about 50% of them are illiterate). Try to say something about freedom of faith. Communism was wiped out only 20 year ago, its leftovers are regimes like the one in N. Korea but also Cuba. You say, ……darkness is also part of human nature…. The question is not if darkness is part……..it definitely is and nobody can deny it, but how do you fight it. In most of the cases the fight is with even more darkness.

AH; I have never lived in a terrorizing country. I did have terrorizing parents and an entrenched belief in a terrorizing Pentecostal God. I am a racial minority in a world that devalues everything I do because of my skin colour. We all have our challenges. In the end, it is arrogant for me to think you can make (force) people do what I think they should do or feel what I think they should feel. This is exactly the mindset of the dictator and I reject that thinking completely. The best I can do is look at my inner signaling. I seek to elevate my own consciousness and change myself for the better. The next step is the social conversation. I share my thinking and values with others in the hope that they too will be inspired to change themselves for the better.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

― Martin Luther King, Jr.

EugenR; Sorry Alexi, this time M.L.King had it wrong. The Nazis were defeated by Stalin, just because his cruelty did not have limits, while the Nazis limited their cruelty only to the non Germans. Without Stalin the Western powers would never stand against the Nazis.

AH; If you think about it carefully, the darkness of Hitler was replaced by the darkness of Stalin. This was true for the USSR, East Germany, East Berlin and most of East Europe. So Stalin did not drive out darkness, he just replaced it with his own dark shadow.

Alexi: Stalin was in control by 1923, ten years before Hitler (Lenin tried to stop him at the end of his life).

PA: The French started the nuclear bomb program in 1938. Nobel Laureate Irene Curie was certain that a bomb could be made. The program went to Manhattan, in total secret to the Nazis, and total opening to Stalin. Hitler would have been nuclear bombed into submission.

EugenR; If we speak about destiny probably Hitler would survive even the nuclear bomb, as he survived about 30 assassination attempts. If to believe in God here you have him. God is against humanism and humanity, and mainly against his “chosen people”. As he misled His Own People, some Jewish rabies  made a trial of God in some extermination camp, and their verdict was, Death penalty. But then after the verdict they went to the next ceremonial pray. The religion is not about morality (mostly in contrary), not about reality or evidence, not about belief in truth (I know many skeptic believers), not even about tribalism since there are religious newcomers, who did not grow in the tribal tradition.
It is all this about some false answers to questions of eternal life? It can be right for some, but not for everyone. So tell me, what it is all about? The faith in communism did not include even belief in eternal life, and still it has so many followers. It seems religion or faith is a need of the human spices to believe in some fundamental dogma, be it even an obvious lie, all it needs is enough followers, and supporters of a false idea. In a way to be a football club fun is also a religion.

Europe and its Jews

The statehood of Israel is a direct consequence of all the tragedies, the European barbaric militarism brought on the world since the disintegration of the Roman empire. I am not capable to summarize the post Roman European history in few sentences, yet i will try to say some personal view about it.

"European history since the disintegration of the Roman empire is about a trial to re-integrate the fragments of the empire, to bring back its greatness, glory and enlightenment. These politically disintegrated kingdoms, that followed the Roman disintegration, were culturally and religiously intertwined, an in a way represented a one big family, fighting within itself about the heritage, the leftovers of Roman empire.".

Not the Franks, be it Charlemagne or Napoleon, not the Roman catholic church, and not anyone else succeeded to bring back integration. Yet this continuous fight for a glorious goal  made the barbaric militaristic kingships, whose very essence was continuous warfare, to be legitimate. The European militarism had no precedence in the history of the rest of the mankind. If compared with the history of other civilizations like the Chinese or Indian, their civilization look very peaceful compared to the European civilization. Even Islam, with its militaristic foundation, and its continuous internal and external wars, looked like a pussycat if compared to that of the Europeans.

But there is the other side of the same coin. This continuous military warfare brought European civilization to a state of continuous change and renewal of its political structure, and with it also its cultural essence. The result was the philosophical enlightenment, which started in the 16 century and came to full blossom in the 18 century, that made a new start in the human history. With the philosophical enlightenment came the scientific and technological advance, that brought since the nineteen century the industrial revolution. This revolution brought the European militarism to advantages, that no other parts of the world could cope with. It also brought urbanization and unprecedented demographic growth. All this advance in knowledge was according to European traditions immediately exported throughout the whole world by its political leaders, who continued their barbaric militaristic traditions, with the colonialism, that did not change practically until the end of WWI.

If the post Napoleon European intellectuals believed that their political leaders will act according to the newly found wisdom and humanistic principles, they were wrong. It is enough to look at the pictures of all the pre WWI kings, wearing  well designed military uniforms, carrying themselves in a traditional  proud pose, in spite of the fact, that none of them participated even in one war. All their military activity started and ended around the maps representing military maneuvers. Strangely most of the European intellectuals did not find it alarming, that Europe with its dangerous military force is leaded by anachronistic aristocratic clowns, whose roots of ethical and political values lay deep in their middle ages origin, when leadership was all about to conquer and subdue your neighbor.

In this Europe lived people, who were seen as outsiders, in spite of living in Roman empire, where at certain epoch they were a significant minority, (almost 10% of its population). These people had their own culture, beliefs and way of life, that did not change in its essence for 2000 years. More of that out of these people came an unwilling prophet, whom the Europeans adopted as their own, in-spite of his teaching, which was full of love and compassion, so much contradicting the political culture of Europe. Yet the Europeans were not grateful to these people for showing them light to love and compassion, but in contrary. They saw in very existence of these people basic contradiction to the essence of their faith, the divinity of the holy trinity. So they continuously persecuted, abused, humiliated and many times murdered them for no crime from their side. Yet from time to time, due to an opportunistic king, who needed their skills, they thrived, until they were again persecuted and expelled from the territory of their kingdom.

Then with the new philosophical understanding of 19 century Europe stroke out, suddenly the Europeans  realized (even in Spain from where they were expelled more than 300 years before), that their attitude to the Jews was criminal. So they gradually emancipated them and let them in certain parts of the Christendom to integrate to the non Jewish society. And the Jews again thrived, and with them the European society, who suddenly discovered their intellectual capacity (mainly in Germany).

But the European history did not stop there (no end to history). The demographic growth, with the new urban centers, full with uprooted peasants, who had no skills for urban life, so they became degraded to second class citizens started to look around. They ceased to look anymore with adoration on the kings, wearing their clown uniforms. What's worse, they were less and less ready to give automatic legitimacy of their leadership. It was not enough for them anymore to tell them the ancient stories about the heroism of their barbarian ancestors. So they started to look for other form of identity and found it in new political entities. Either those who wrapped themselves in packing of equality for all, or those who wrapped themselves in packs of ancient glory. Both these political movements did not like the old aristocrats (the descendents of the barbarian barons), but some of the aristocrats understood, the old political structures are unsustainable, and they have to become part of the new structures. So obviously they had chosen the glory of the past and opposed the alternative of equality for all. And as it happened many representatives of this political movement for equality happened to be descendents of Jewish communities, who just recently were freed from their ghettoes, with it from the Jewish communities and old believes, that originating from middle ages and even before.

Eventually the European kings continued to live in their fairy-tale world of false heroism, glory and high self-appreciation, and started to take seriously their costumes as if they represented some real value and not just a clowns disguise. So they caused a earthquake (WWI), that was followed by a tsunami (communistic and fascistic regimes) that one of their main agenda was to finish with continuous existence of this annoying nation, the Jews, who lately in their arrogance started to be involved not only in European intellectual activities but also in politics. It may be, God forbid,  that in the future they may ask even for positions in the military establishment.

The result is well known. The Jews were annihilated in Europe and some leftover wretched refugees, concentrated their last hope in establishing a Jewish state in the only place, that could draw them, the ancient homeland of Israel, where their cultural heritage and faith was created. It was a crazy idea, but a normal response to a crazy situation caused by insanity of European events. After all, who would believe before WWI, that ausgerechnet out of all this scientific, philosophical and technological progress will come these monstrous regimes and ideologise as Nazism and Communism. If someone would tell to anybody in July 1914 what is expected to happen to the Europeans and the world in the twenties century, no-one would believe him.

But unfortunately the Jewish solution of creating a Jewish state ausgerechnet in the ancient land of Israel, surrounded by Muslim population with Islamic military tradition of Dar al Harb   (Dar al-Harb (Arabic: دار الحرب "house of war"; also referred to as Dar al-Garb "house of the West" in later Ottoman sources; a person from "Dar al-Harb" is a "harbi" (Arabic:حربي). Dar al-Harb is a term classically referring to those countries where the Muslim law is not in force, in the matter of worship and the protection of the faithful and dhimmis.[6] It is unclean by definition, and will not become clean until annexed to the House of Peace. Its denizens are either to be converted, killed[7] or, if people of the book, tolerated as long as they pay the jizya.) was not a happy one.

So the newly established Jewish state had to fought war in average every 5 years since its 66 years of existence, and could not lose even one, because it would mean immediate implementation of enforcement of Islam law, which as we know is "not very tolerant" to the non Muslims, or those whom they call unbelievers.

The result is all what we see in these days, a new generation of Israelis, who were born and grow up to a statehood, that economically and culturally is thriving in-spite of all these wars. Israel is also trying to project to the world that it is a normal country with normal citizens with normal expectations from the life, without to feel everyday threat on their life. This they try to achieve in spite of its Arab Muslim neighbors (living in neighborhood or in far lands), who even when in peace among themselves, express a totalitarian animosity towards the Jews, that were not heard since WWII. But they don't stop with the words, but also express military activism in spite of being not a match to the Israeli military might. And when retaliated they expose to the world their suffering, expecting from the "merciful Europeans" support. And the European, full of regret for the crimes they committed to the world, but mainly to the Jews, (not to the Arabs)  are suddenly merciful, even if it is on account of the Jews, or maybe due to it, according to their historical tradition of hatred to the Jews, that many of European in a way did not abandoned, just wrapped to a new packing.