User talk:Kalki

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Monad.svg
Atom deBrogie.jpg

Rainbow diagram.svg
Sunburst Badge.svg
WikiProject Scouting going home symbol.svg
Polytat.svg
LuMaxArt Golden Family With World Religions.jpg
Caduceus color.svg
Ankh-Symbol.svg
Blue Pacific.svg
Caput mortuum.svg
Caduceus.png
Quaker star-T.svg
SHAEF Shoulder Patch.svg

Dudeism.svg
Love rules without rules.

Keel-billed Toucan-27527.jpg

What's So Bad About Feeling Good?
Compass Card transparent.png
Swirlyclock.png
Kalki · archives: X · index · iota · imago · αnima · 2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · controversies · assessments‎‎ · VOC·K · 2009 † 2010 · outrages · 2011 · contentions · RfA1 · 2012 · RfA2‎‎ · 2013 · 2014 · RfA3‎‎ · Magic · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box · Heroes · OZ · OASIS ·
The imperialist ideology of force, from whatever side it comes, must be shattered for all time.
~ The White Rose ~
Yorkshire rose.svg
Libertarian Socialist Flag.svg
THE CORRUPT FEAR US · THE HONEST SUPPORT US · THE HEROIC JOIN US.
~ ANONYMOUS ~
Anonymous Anarchist Flag.svg

The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.

~ George Orwell ~
COA George Washington.svg
I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy.
~ George Washington ~
HexagramForWiki5.png
Every morning
I shall concern myself anew about the boundary
Between the love-deed-Yes and the power-deed-No
And pressing forward honor reality.

We cannot avoid
Using power,
Cannot escape the compulsion
To afflict the world,
So let us, cautious in diction
And mighty in contradiction,
Love powerfully.

~ Martin Buber ~
Extracted pink rose.png
Black rose.pngUvit-ros.png
What's outside of Pleasantville?
~ Gary Ross ~
Anarco logo Wikiquote.svg
My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchyphilosophically understood, meaning abolition of control … The most improper job of any man … is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.
~ J. R. R. Tolkien ~
Wikipedia-logo A pt.svg
If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business.
~ Lee Daniel Crocker ~
Circle-A red.svg

I AM an Anarchist.
All good men are Anarchists.

All cultured, kindly men; all gentlemen; all just men are Anarchists.
Jesus was an Anarchist.

~ Elbert Hubbard ~

Monad.svg Metatrons cube.svg Broken crossed circle.svg Sahasrara.svg Rod of asclepius left.svg Dove window St Peters Basilica (8504106313).jpg Rod of asclepius.svg Sahasrara.svg Broken crossed circle.svg Metatrons cube.svg Monad.svg
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves:
be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
~ Jesus ~
in
Matthew 10:16

Caduceus 1924.svg
Christian Socialism Anarchism.svg

Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee:
Love, and do what thou wilt.

~ Augustine of Hippo ~
Yyjpg.svg

Love works magic.
It is the final purpose
Of the world story,
The Amen of the Universe.
~ Novalis ~

Sahasrara.svg

Whatever pretended pessimists in search of notoriety may say, most people are naturally kind, at heart.

~ James Branch Cabell ~
in
The Cream of the Jest

Editor at large 1206.svg

Aegishjalmr.svg

Monad.svg Lancashire rose.svg Tudor Rose.svg Invisible Pink Unicorn.svg Tudor Rose.svg Lancashire rose.svg Monad.svg
Moderate strength is shown in violence, supreme strength is shown in levity.
~ G. K. Chesterton ~
in
The Man Who Was Thursday

Rainbow-diagram-ROYGBIV.svg
Mensural time signature 1.svg
Her Testimony to the Truth (title page top).png
Ancient Egypt Wings.svg
The law of levity is allowed to supersede the law of gravity.

~ R. A. Lafferty ~

Terry Pratchett Arms.svg

Of course I'm sane, when trees start talking to me, I don't talk back.

~ Terry Pratchett ~
in
The Light Fantastic

Tree of life hebrew.svg
A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees.

~ William Blake ~
Tree of life with genome size.svg

Something always manages to draw me near the tree that lightning is about to fall upon.

~ Roger Zelazny ~
in
Lord of Light

Monad.svg
DBC-Hope.jpg
Monad.svg Banner of Peace from the Roerich Pact.svgChakraserpent.svgBlue Pacific.svg Monad.svg

The realization that life is absurd and cannot be an end, but only a beginning. This is a truth nearly all great minds have taken as their starting point.
~ Albert Camus ~

Yyjpg.svgAncient version of the Taijitu by Lai Zhi-De, sideways.svgYin yang.svg
Monad.svg

Bbrot225x225x24.PNG

As soon as men live entirely in accord with the law of love natural to their hearts and now revealed to them, which excludes all resistance by violence, and therefore hold aloof from all participation in violence — as soon as this happens, not only will hundreds be unable to enslave millions, but not even millions will be able to enslave a single individual.
~ Leo Tolstoy ~

Anonymous.svg

There is no justice in following unjust laws.
~ Aaron Swartz‎‎ ~

Lotus.svg

That which is not just, is not Law; and that which is not Law, ought not to be obeyed.
~ Algernon Sydney ~

Flaming Chalice.svg

There is no greater mindlessness and absurdity than to force conscience and the spirit with external power, when only their creator has authority for them.
~ Ferenc Dávid ~

Christian Anarchist Blot.svg

Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your own home.
Good Omens

UNchangedcolorBLUE.png

There probably is a God. Many things are easier to explain if there is than if there isn't.
~ John von Neumann ~
Electric steam iron.jpg
God is an Iron.
~ Spider Robinson ~
JUL Iris Soul Palm.png
Uffington White Horse layout.png
Yyjpg.svg
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
~ Albert Einstein ~
A+O.svg
Monad.svg
Clover symbol.svg
Dearinth Goddess.png
Dont panic.svg
Terry Pratchett Arms.svg
Circle-A red.svg
Noia 64 apps karm.png This user has been on Wikiquote for
11 years, and 14 days.
100,001+
Sahasrara.svg

Devanagari-Ka.svg

KemetismSymbolWhite.PNG
Blue Pacific.svg
Caput mortuum.svg
Monad.svg

With this and other accounts I have made over 111,111 contributive edits, created well over 1001 pages and done substantial work on well over 1000 more, some of which are listed here. JUL Soul Iris.png
Etruscan Horse 2.jpg


This is the primary account of Kalki, who has also used many other account-names here, some since the very first days of this Wiki.

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
Foundational Principles against overly-controlling forces developing on the wikis.
Even if you have read them before, PLEASE EXAMINE ANEW: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and the other links available there, including the links delineating much which Wikipedia was NOT.
These were some of the earliest directives established by the founding workers on the Wikimedia projects.

"Ignore all rules: If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business." ~ RulesToConsider
"IAR is policy, always has been" ~ Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales

NotSuckBanner.jpg

Anonymous Idea.jpg
I am in a period of very intermittent but gradually developing activity here : I was once an admin here (from 29 January 2004 to 1 December 2009), but being that no longer, there is far less usefulness or need for my regular presence, and I am far less inclined to spend as much time monitoring as many things. I continue to serve, protect and develop this project to the extent I can amidst many other concerns, but I follow no set schedule. A devotion to preserving and expanding many forms of Awareness, Life, Love and appreciation of the principles of Justice, Unity Liberty and Joyous Universalist Love in truly profound and genuine ways far beyond that of lip-service, based on an intense commitment to the crucial virtues of humility, courage, honesty and compassion, continues to guide me and abide with me. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC) + tweaks Kalki·· 04:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

Dr Manhattan symbol.svg
Rorschach like Inkblot.svg
We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions.
Yet seen from the another's vantage point, as if new, it may still take our breath away.

~ Alan Moore ~
in
Watchmen

Prism-rainbow-black.svg
Anonymous.jpg
ENG COA Newton.svg
Everybody is special.
Everybody.
Everybody is a hero, a lover, a fool, a villain, everybody.
Everybody has their story to tell...

~ Alan Moore ~
in
V for Vendetta

Love is Freedom.jpg
I love my BELOVED
… ooh …
ALL and Everywhere.

~ Kate Bush ~

A master in the art of living draws no sharp distinction between his work and his play; his labor and his leisure; his mind and his body; his education and his recreation.
He hardly knows which is which.
He simply pursues his vision of excellence through whatever he is doing, and leaves others to determine whether he is working or playing.
To himself, he always appears to be doing both.
~ L. P. Jacks ~

Dudeism.svg

The Dude abides.
I don't know about you but I take comfort in that.
It's good knowin' he's out there.
The Dude.
Takin' 'er easy for all us sinners.

~ The Stranger ~
in
~ The Big Lebowski ~
Rose Cross Lamen.svg

I am convinced that everyone can develop a good heart and a sense of universal responsibility with or without religion.
~ Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama ~
Tibetian Wheel.svg

The words "God is love" have this deep meaning: that everything that is against love is ultimately doomed and damned.
~ Halford E. Luccock ~

Taijitu polarity.PNG

I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal, but because there is no such thing as a final goal.
~ Rudolf Rocker ~
AforAnarcho.svg

I've never seen anybody really find the answer, but they think they have.
So they stop thinking.

But the job is to seek mystery, evoke mystery, plant a garden in which strange plants grow and mysteries bloom.
The need for mystery is greater than the need for an answer.
~ Ken Kesey ~

Tree-of-Life Flower-of-Life Stage.jpg



[edit]

Kalki· archives: index · 2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · November 2009 Controversies · Assessments‎‎ · VOC·K · 2009 † 2010 · Outrages of 2010‎‎ · 2011 · RfA1 · 2012 · RfA2‎‎ · 2013 · 2014 · RfA3‎‎ · Magic · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box ·

My years are not advancing as fast as you might think.
~ "Phil" ~
in
~ Groundhog Day ~


Ω [edit]

Compass Card transparent.png
Swirlyclock.png
Kalki · archives: X · index · iota · imago · αnima · 2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · controversies · assessments‎‎ · VOC·K · 2009 † 2010 · outrages · 2011 · contentions · RfA1 · 2012 · RfA2‎‎ · 2013 · 2014 · RfA3‎‎ · Magic · Worldsong · Restorations · Chronology · Vox Box · Heroes · OZ · OASIS ·



Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan[edit]

I have completely revised this article. A quote by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan on Flag of India posted by me for the front page display of 15 August on the occasion of Independence day of India may please be considered. --Nvvchar (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion seems a good one, and certainly will be considered; I am presently leaning towards supporting it, but will probably wait a few days before making definite decisions. ~ Kalki·· 12:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for Today's QUOTD.--Nvvchar (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion, and I am sorry I did not post the QOTD sooner, but I still managed to form a layout not too long after midnight in India. ~ Kalki·· 13:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I very much appreciate your layout. It is wonderful.--Nvvchar (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

bolding[edit]

I'm going to write a book someday and the title will be I'm an Ass, You're an Ass. That's the most liberating, wonderful thing in the world, when you openly admit you're an ass. It's wonderful. When people tell me, "You're wrong" I say, "What can you expect of an ass?" ~ Anthony de Mello

is subjective. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is; I have never sought to deny that at all. But within the necessary ranges of subjectivity and especially pronounced subjective notions about objectivity, I believe it is fairest to emphasize a major economic factor which the author himself is emphasizing, rather than some expressed wish for somewhat sadistic vengeance on someone he perceives to be in error upon the matter. ~ Kalki·· 22:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC) + tweak
As I explained in the edit summary, the latter part is what makes the quote interesting. That markets need to be regulated is a superfluous point, much (and widely) repeated, and obviously not original to Paul Samuelson. His rivalry with Milton, and him having the last word by virtue of outliving him, is what makes the quote memorable, and is also the reason why I added it to the article in the first place. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
In your latest reversion you implied I was being an ass for reverting your change in emphasis to a quote you had earlier added. Accepting what you state about your motives as truth, I assert you are definitely being more foully asinine than I on this matter. None of us have any absolute "possession" of our additions here — and I disagreed with the change in emphasis as one I found de-emphasizing the MAJOR point the author was making, about economic policies, even IF not original to him, and somewhat emphasizing a rather petty personal mean-spiritedness, on his part, which can occur in even many of the most generally benevolent of people, to their own disgrace, and the disgrace of others who think such things should be emulated or emphasized. I agree that the quote definitely IS notable, in its entirety, but I do disagree on what is more generally beneficial to Humanity to emphasize — the VALID economic and political observations OR the pettiness which is added onto that observation, which I believe is not conducive to human progress, and the vitally necessary efforts to transcend the BLAME and SHAME games which have been going on for EONS, about MANY things, and which I do NOT expect to END, but which I do expect CAN be EXPOSED and diminished, gradually or rapidly by those of sufficient intelligence and integrity. I hope and actually believe that this will occur with increasing urgency in the years ahead. ~ Kalki·· 22:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
Yeah. I told you why the quote is notable. That you disapprove of it morally is of no concern to Wikiquote. (Neither is your assertion that Samuelson's observation on the economy is "VALID", btw. That is your judgment; others will—and do—disagree.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There is ALWAYS morality in INDICATING truth, as best one can, and I believe the author did this. I disagree with some aspects of the will exhibited in the observations, but certainly do NOT disapprove of it as "immoral." "VALIDITY" is ALWAYS a PROVISIONAL matter, as are MANY forms of "truth", and as with ALL things there are MANY subjective impressions about WHAT provisions should be most noted, among those involved in various levels of logical or illogical EXPOSITION of either. You provided me an assertion about WHAT you say you found most notable about the quote, and why YOU believe the quote to be notable to others. I find it MOST notable for the economic opinions which are VALID, and the emotional assertions ALSO notable but FAR less so, in many ways, and far less important to emphasize or even glorify. Most economic theories have MANY deficiencies and MANY have MANY flaws — Reality is always BEYOND all the provisions of ANY THEORY — capitalist or socialist, or theistic or atheistic for that matter. Among all ranges of possible interaction on ANY matters I find Humility, Courage, Honesty and Compassion to be VITAL VIRTUES — and it is those which I most regularly reflect upon, in assessing the values of ANY observations I encounter. ~ Kalki·· 23:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
[1] [2] [3] ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The second link, showing the first revision you made was plainly one I can agree with, as it is aligned with such principles as I have indicated, and was the state I was inclined to restore. The last link you provide to a pathetically ranting paranoid fear and hate monger has relevance to the type of idiocy which I believe MUST diminish, if Humanity is to even survive, let alone progress and prosper, but I have no time to listen to or analyze specifics of his rants or moments of lucid observation now. Even the most obvious of the fearful and hateful bigots of the world, or the more sophisticated and discrete bigoted hate mongers who are less obviously pronounced in their promotion of fear and hate CAN conceivably be redeemed from paths of ignorance and confusion, but I have no delusion that such paths are always likely or practical, easy or entirely safe, in relation to more general concerns. I am just making this note in brief, because I must be leaving now. I will check on matters further after I have returned. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 23:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC) + tweak
I had only listened to the first few seconds of the rant at the 3rd link, but was in too much of a hurry to listen and realize that that was about all there was to the link. I have not much time now, because I must be leaving again. So it goes... ~ Kalki·· 23:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
That you agree with the second link revision is only natural: after all, it was you who made the edit. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, natural enough — when I had glanced quickly through the 3 links with no hint as to why they were in any way relevant, I was focusing on WHAT was done, rather than WHO was doing it, as is often the case with me, much to the shock of people who expect favoritism from someone who has long seen through many forms of hypocrisy. I certainly do NOT claim to fully know all that matters most to others, in ANY event, but I know enough to always be inclined to both sorrow and laugh when people behave as if they themselves actually do, or AS IF others automatically should. The last link to the rantings, was such as I am simply inclined to sorrow at, rather than laugh — I find such levels of paranoid fear and hate too intense to easily laugh at, as others do, especially when some regularly point to such extremes as to make little of their own bigotry and intolerance. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 19:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

Robin Williams[edit]

What do you think of changing tomorrow's (in 6 minutes) QOTD to one by Robin Williams (who's passed away) as a tribute to him? ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Offhand I have no quotes by him that I would place above the Erwin Schrödinger quote and layout, nor the Felix Adler one for the 13th. I considered placing some image of him in one of the current layouts, but in a quick search I haven't found any that would fit in well — perhaps something can be composed and added later today, as I did on the date of the announcement of Maya Angelou's death — but unfortunately, I have to be leaving now, and probably won't be back for at least a couple hours. ~ Kalki·· 00:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Your addition to his page of "Comedy can be a cathartic way to deal with personal trauma" is QUITE a good addition — and I will be thinking of ways to use that, while I am gone. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Happy Feet Premiere (307985736).jpg  
Monad.svg

Watchmen Smiley.svg

Comedy can be a cathartic way to deal with personal trauma.

~ Robin Williams ~
Robin Williams in 2008.jpg
  Robin Williams.jpg
I've stuck around, and might put this in above the regular layout with Erwin Schrödinger's quote on Consciousness — a fitting mix of Awareness, Life and Love amidst the appearances of comings and goings of our experiences. ~ Kalki·· 00:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good. ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Another option is the quote: Death is nature's way of saying, "Your table is ready." That's the best I could find, but the current one is also ok. Cheers ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I much prefer the first find. I found it so fitting that I delayed leaving even further, after already being a bit late at some excursions, and think the layout I threw together rather swiftly before I left was a fairly good one, and that it doesn't clash too much with the previously selected QOTD and its layout, and in some ways I believe that they go together well. ~ Kalki·· 06:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC) + tweak
(unrelated) [4] – see your protégés celebrating his death in the comments section. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Your cheap and quite moronic insults are beginning to get a bit tiresome. By protégés "celebrating his death" I take it you mean to insult myself and other human beings far less tolerant of ignorance and confusion than myself, by shows of your own ignorance and bigotry in harping on other people's ignorance and bigotry. I believe that in this matter you are plainly a very confused person seeking to confuse others further. I am a long-time admirer of Robin Williams and his levels of frank honesty. I give sanction to no form of intolerant bigotry — even the kind which is often popular among MANY diverse factions of human beings, until the types of shallowness and depths of corruption involved in them are exposed for what they are. ~ Kalki·· 23:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
I agree with Kalki's characterization of tiresome insults above. There is no justification for this sort of trolling on Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but as Kalki said, I am very confused – what "tiresome insults" exactly are you referring to? ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
A very great and troubled genius of general good will and comedy, who I have long admired is dead — I do not expect all people to admire all aspects of his frank humor, nor to admire all aspects of mine, but I do sometimes feel anger at the sheer stupidity of those who celebrate tragedy and gloat at it — including those who gloat all they can at the very real tragedies of other people gloating at various tragedies. I saw through the PETTY shallowness of such STUPIDITY by the time I was 3 or 4 years old, and it still appalls me that there are so many people who reach adulthood with apparently so little ability to see through such things. ~ Kalki·· 23:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
What appalls me is seeing people cheering and celebrating someone's death, and subsequent eternal torment in hellfire, just because he doesn't buy into their religion—I did not, and do not, "gloat" about it. You are making an uneducated judgment/guess about what is going on inside my brain—something you have no way of knowing—and then attacking me for it. So, according to you, if I (say) sent you a link to pictures of beheaded Christian children, I would just be "gloating" at the perpetrators? No, my friend; the one who is confused here is you. I do apologize, however, for bursting the farcical bubble of delusion you're living in. You strike me as one of those people who only wake up when the knife is already at their throats. But I could be wrong—after all, (and unlike you,) I wouldn't want to be too judgmental about it. Cheers. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Your are a fairly intelligent person, and yet I am sometimes appalled by the sheer STUPIDITY with which you have sometimes misused that intelligence, and seem plainly QUITE ignorant and confused about a number of important things. To echo some your own words in regard to me, I will state that I have no time right now to spend on bursting the "farcical bubble of delusion you're living in" — if you for one instant believe you are entirely on the side of righteousness and good grace in this instance. Your casual comments, actions and insinuations about my character, and MY thought processes, ideas and intentions have been EXTREMELY contemptible in some regards, and I believe you probably have sense enough to at least BEGIN to perceive that, but you probably have little idea how profoundly and intensely I mean that, or the reasons why I am willing to state it. I will attend to some of the issues raised here further after I return. I must be leaving now. ~ Kalki·· 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

second wind[edit]

I have returned. [undramatic pause, as I laugh a bit at myself and other aspects of the Eternities of which we are all a part, and invite you to do the same, to the extent you can] I have also rested since returning, sleeping for at least a couple hours, and probably a bit more — and I have now awoken and thought freshly upon a few things to say, and a few things NOT to say, at least not immediately.

I had typed a few things earlier, before I slept, which I have just briefly reviewed, and decided not to use at present, if at all. Some of the observations were VERY harsh, in ways that would probably surprise you and others, and which might long damage you or your prestige in ways I do not wish to do. I usually take MUCH consideration before doing such things to ANYONE.

I will note that this section began with your very helpful and informative comments and suggestions to do a memorial quote in regards to the death of Robin Williams. That was actually the first I had heard of his death, and was immediately saddened and somewhat surprised, and after I confirmed it to be the truth I was profoundly saddened by that news, though I might not have been inclined to let much of that show at the time.

What might have seemed to you a casual or bizarrely, even a "mild" and acceptable dig at myself and a few bigoted muslims who were indicating such generally stupid forms of intensely foul bigotry as are unpopular even among most muslims, and implying that they were in ANY way my "protégés" was EXTREMELY insulting to both me, and to a broad range of human faiths and beliefs which were being treated AS IF this were to be regarded as "typical" reactions of muslims, to such tragedies, and I was a "typical" naïve pacifist in my attitudes. I indicated I believed THEIR attitudes were tragically stupid, as were yours in presenting them AS IF they were typical of muslims, or in any way CONDONED or accepted by ME. I can FORGIVE many forms of human and sub-human STUPIDITY, including theirs and yours, but that does NOT mean that I condone it, or will not FIGHT against it vigorously. Similar forms of bigotry and stupidity are ALSO being manifest by the obnoxious Westboro Baptist Church, but that does NOT mean that such attitudes and stupidity are typical of most Baptists or most Christians, or most human beings, who have the DECENCY to avoid such sad forms of distressing assaults on others lives and dignity. The overly generalizing and and misplaced specificity of MANY forms of human bigotry are ALWAYS appalling, to the wise, and this particular incident of it struck me personal as profoundly repulsive. You are probably also aware that a few of the anonymous cowards who ABOUND on the internet, took to horrifically tormenting Williams daughter Zelda after his death, driving her, at least temporarily, off of Twitter. This certainly does NOT mean that all who act anonymously or pseudonymously on the internet are to always be assumed to be such pathetic and ignorant assholes.

One thing I do wish to make as clear as I can, that I am NOT at all losing my general sense of humor about things, in expressing some peculiar and honest forms of anger, at some apparent actions and attitudes which you have exhibited. I regularly get mildly angry and sometimes intensely angry at what I perceive to be various forms of generally detrimental error — but I have LONG had perspectives which PREVENT me from falling into what I consider the extremely profound error of HATING human beings, of ANY type, even some of the worst and most confused, and wishing them any form of humiliation or harm. ANOTHER thing I wish to make clear, is something I know is even harder for some to even understand, let alone believe or accept as proper: this does NOT mean that I am unwilling to BE or become relatively INDIFFERENT to many forms of their fate, or others fates — and as to whether they receive acclaim or disdain from others, APART from concerns for what influences they can or do have upon the destinies or dooms of general humanity, or others of great worth. I can and do OFTEN become interested and involved or indifferent towards MANY things for MANY reasons which I know others CANNOT easily understand, and which I do not often even attempt to explain — believing or KNOWING that such attempts at explanation would likely be tedious and confusing, and relatively futile and unproductive, within the circumstances in which I could provide them. Circumstances regarding MANY things are becoming FAR different NOW, and I am becoming more willing and able to INDICATE many aspects about SOME things, upon which I was previously inclined to be absolutely silent. Among them were incidents where I clearly perceived my own life or the lives of others were in extreme danger, and some of the events which occurred in those circumstances.

IF you wish to discuss some things at issue here with me in coming weeks, there are some ideas which I have rarely or never discussed with others, which I am VERY likely to eventually touch upon, and some subjects which I have discussed with others at times, but never, thus far, here, which are likely to eventually come up, but I will probably avoid them for at least a month or two. I believe that I will have to openly and honestly deal with MANY forms and aspects of "Awareness", "Life" and "Love" from perspectives which I know will seem strange and unfamiliar to many, and these will involve peculiar perspectives on "personal awareness" and "kenotic awareness" which I have long manifested, and considered ways to indicate to others who are not familiar with such notions as they permit and impel.

My aim in ANY discussions in which we might engage, is NOT to "win over" you, NOR to "win you" over to or away from some particular or peculiar perspectives or creeds — but to PROVIDE you, and any others who might eventually become interested at least some sense of perspectives that I believe are BROADER and DEEPER and generally more vitally EXPANSIVE than many you have known, which I HOPE can eventually or swiftly help you become more well-informed about many things, happy, content, and more truly secure and tolerant, amidst ALL necessary and proper forms of human diversity, which I believe are actually FAR broader than many are inclined to suppose.

I know that I have VERY peculiar perspectives upon MANY things, and that I often have very peculiar and indeed unique reasons for having them, and despite what might be the presumptions of some, I do NOT believe that it is my own or anyone else's genuine moral duty to help anyone believe in any particular notions or theories about Reality, such are OFTEN the aims of many partisans of political or religious creeds. I yet actually do believe it is my moral duty to often try to indicate such aspects of Reality as I truly believe can and will help them to DEVELOP ideas and notions which will be beneficial to themselves and others, APART from whatever political or religious affiliations they might be inclined to have or maintain, and I know that this can often be a more difficult and dangerous task than identifying myself with some particular "group" or "gang" amidst the MANY rival groups and gangs of social and anti-social economic and religious and political ideologies which exist.

BE forewarned, depending upon many largely unforeseen or unforeseeable circumstances, in the courses of time, I will probably eventually start to reveal some very odd and even BIZARRE forms of humor, which you might not easily appreciate — or even recognize as humor at all, let alone good humor. Brutally Punishing Puns, incredible inanities which might seem simply insane nonsense upon first glance, or even upon second or third or fourth — and so forth.… and yet might eventually reveal some method to much of my apparent madness, to those of sufficient patience, knowledge and intelligence, willing to put up with many forms of paradox and puzzlement. And I will also touch upon subjects which are generally not funny at all, but are quite tragic, and easily depressing.

For some time I have had a growing resolve that in this year, for the sake of others, I will at least begin to reveal more things about my personal EXPERIENCES and PERSPECTIVES upon them, than I have previously been inclined to do, and despite MUCH reluctance to do so, about some of them. One very prominent subject in the lives of myself and others lately, and from my earliest years of life, is the subject of suicide, and suicide prevention. Even prior to Robert Williams death, the subject was VERY prominent on my mind, as I was recently one of the first persons on the scene of a rather gruesome suicide, of someone who had deliberately stepped out in front of a train, and I eventually realized that it was someone I had just met and casually conversed with a few days before. He had seemed a generally cheerful and pleasant fellow, and though I sorrowed intensely thinking upon the tragedy of the act, and even though there was little I could have done to foresee or prevent the tragedy, I felt some sense of responsibility, for NOT having begun to discuss some of my own perspectives on such matters LONG ago, in such ways as might have been helpful to people in such confusion and distress. There is MUCH I could say about this incident, and will probably eventually reveal that I am NOT inclined to discuss here and now. Amidst regular contemplations of such things to say upon such matters, in the days and weeks ahead, the tragedy of Williams death occurred, leaving me even more intensely saddened, for he was someone I had long respected, admired, and considered in many ways a "kindred spirit" in generally genial good humor and disposition, despite some rather somber streaks and dark sides to both of our personalities, and someone similarly prone to have VERY complex and even inexplicable reflections upon many matters.

As you quite ignorantly and stupidly sought to mock me as someone naïve and overly "passive" to the threats of OTHER forms of bigotry than that I perceive you to manifest at times, by calling me someone who struck you as "one of those people who only wake up when the knife is already at their throats" and linking to a pacifist murdered by bigoted extremists, another matter I might bring up, in as humorous a way as I can, is where I literally had a switch-blade to my throat, and the consequences of that, in regard to myself, and those who were attempting to threaten and intimidate me. In a rather non-revelatory summary, I will say that in retrospect I consider the incident IMMENSELY funny, and THEY who were involved in the assault upon my dignity were quite shocked and surprised at my reactions, in ways that I still can laugh at, no one having been profoundly or permanently injured in the incident — as they easily could have been, had I not swiftly appraised the situation, and realized I and others were NOT in quite such danger as it for a brief while seemed, with a blade very menacingly at my throat, from someone who was attempting to assault me from behind. That was actually the last incident I can remember where I was so enraged with "righteous indignation" that I had an actual and I believe understandable desire to do severe physical injury to anyone, and was willing to indulge it. I actually have at times done injury to others, in ways which I know were QUITE surprising to them, when they seemed to stupidly believe that because I was generally passive or meek in my disposition, that I was unable or unwilling to fight if they assaulted me or my rights, or those of others which I held dear. I might eventually go into some of those incidents, and others where I or others were clearly in danger, but not now.

I am NOT a person to demand or expect apologies from others, for their errors, and I willingly forgive them, to the extent I can, whether they are remorseful or not. I do hope you will reflect more extensively on some of what I have indicated here. I honestly consider NO human being an absolute enemy, no matter how foully in error MANY of them often are about MANY things — and I have no hesitation in making it as clear as possible that MANY of the ways of MANY are ways I find intensely foul. That does NOT mean I am not willing to find some forms of fairness in most as well, and I believe that those who are MOST able and willing to see the fairness in all, as well as having realistic and not exaggerated views of the foulness, have the greatest opportunities and likelihood to remain fair as possible themselves. To such ends I do tend to emphasize the positive, but it certainly does NOT lead me to be naïve about the negative, nor entirely passive in regard to it. MORE is likely to be said by both of us, in the days ahead, I am sure, but I must begin to attend to other things now. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 12:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

I will just say, that even if you were a martial arts master, and well-trained in self-defense, attempting to fight back unarmed against someone with a knife is always a very bad idea. [5] ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree. That was NOT actually my first reaction, but it became my strong inclination once it became strongly apparent to me I was probably dealing with a couple of people who were probably extremely deranged lunatics, out to kill me and others. I might go into further detail eventually, but there are MANY levels of false appearances that occurred, and which I do not wish to immediately give away. It might be months before I reveal many of the details of the situation, including some of those which I actually find most significant. ~ Kalki·· 13:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

demographics[edit]

Talk is fine, but the issue is one of demographics. Did you read the news yesterday?—"Muhammed Is Britain's Most Popular Boys Name"! I noticed many people getting angry at this, but of course, neither anger nor talk can beat demographics.

This is actually old news: it was true in 2013, but also in 2011, and as far back as 2009 (see "Mohammed has become the most popular name for newborn boys in Britain").

Tell me, what is your reaction when you hear this? ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually MANY things come to mind, but I have little time to present much about them now, as I must be leaving agains for at least a couple hours. Immediately this quote and a few others came to mind:
Think not the bigotry of another is any excuse for your own … let him have all the bigotry to himself. If he forbid you, do not you forbid him. Rather labour, and watch, and pray the more, to confirm your love toward him. If he speak all manner of evil of you, speak all manner of good (that is true) of him.
~ John Wesley ~
Such demographic arguments on the peril of some unpopular groups are "old news" indeed: I am quite aware that similar arguments as these have in the past been used in regard to the threat of prolific Jews, Roman Catholics, Mormons, and various ethnic groups. It does not much disturb me that demographics change in various regions of the world, but it does disturb me that so much of humanity everywhere remains so ignorant and confused that the same old tired and quite corruptive arguments for "purity" continually arise, among various factions, and I certainly do not exclude ANY form of ethnic, political, religious, theist, atheist, or agnostic from those I consider inclined to various forms of bigotry, and appeals to often quite popular forms of bigotry.
You say "talk is fine" as if I were merely talking about something despicably shallow, rather than attempting to explicate and uphold profound ethical principles. You seem to be insisting that talking in such ways as do not abjectly approve your apparent dispositions towards bigotry towards islamic influences, which I acknowledge ALSO contain extremely bigoted and dangerous elements, VERY prominently, is merely dithering, against an immediate and overwhelming threat to MANY human freedoms such as you and I both seem to value. I yet go further in respect for Liberty, and seem to have far more confidence in embracing it than you. I consider the extreme fixation of MANY diverse sorts of people on the bigotries of others as quite generally attempts to justify and excuse their own, and find ways to fight those PEOPLE whom they fear or hate,rather than examine the broad ranges of circumstances involved in ALL human concerns sufficiently to fight against the true problems of bigotry in ANY and ALL people — including themselves. I have vigorously examined my own biases in many ways, as well as those of others, and I rarely am inclined to condemn them for them, even where I believe they dangerously err, as many of the most dangerously biased are — who I believe err the most dangerously.
Even by the time I was 4 or 5 I recognized there were forms of sexism, racism, ethnic, religious and political bigotries at work in the world, and had a profound sense that MUCH of the conflict was due to exaggerated focus on often quite superficial and relatively trivial things, and lack of awareness and appreciation of the most profoundly important and pervasive things, and had begun to contemplate various ways to fight these forms of ignorance and confusion, for the benefits of others, out of genuine social and spiritual concerns, as well as personal concerns related to these. Even at a very early age I clearly realized that I lived in a world where to do so could be dangerous, but have always believed it was more dangerous not to try to do what you believe can to help. Harping on the apparent faults of flaws of others is rarely all that helpful — finding the common forms of virtue and good that can eventually become stronger and more prominent than these in MOST people is what I believe to be most important. Towards such ends I strive.
Though I typed tidbits of other ideas I might take up later, I have to be leaving now. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 00:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
You are living in dreamland. Don't get me wrong – it is precisely because I want you, and everyone else, to be able to speak of and defend principles of freedom, that we must oppose Islam. Do you remember Theo van Gogh's last words? He asked his killer: "Mercy, mercy! We can talk about it, can't we?", just before being shot dead and beheaded. Islam is the antithesis of freedom. It means submission – and if you do not submit, you are killed. Importing this culture to Europe means not just less freedom for all, but greater physical danger to women, gays, apostates, and Jews, and is thus a great betrayal to them, not to mention to all the oppressed women in the Muslim world, many of whom already gave their lives just for rejecting the burka. Your welcoming of Eurabia is absolutely disgusting to me. Needless to say, "Jews, Roman Catholics, Mormons" are not trying to take over the world. If you think Islam is just equal to other religions, and can not see the unique threat it poses to the West, and to freedom, you are under a very dangerous delusion, one that I fear will cost future generations dear. ~ DanielTom (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As an absurdist universalist mystic I can accept that to some extent we are all living in dreamland, all the time, — some of us simply tend to have more optimistic and optimizing dreams of human potentials, and others more constrained and confining ones, which see little or no good hopes outside of such constraints and confinements as they find comfortable or believe necessary.

If you honestly don’t believe that there HAVE been and ARE rather absurdly ignorant bigots with VERY strong confident belief that most Jews, Roman Catholics, Mormons have been or ARE out to "take over the world" you are rather unaware of some of the most absurdly prominent and often quite ugly conspiracy theories of the last few centuries, which have been used to justify various persecutions. Especially prolific are those who resent such successes MANY prominent and wealthy members of such groups HAVE had, for various reasons. No matter how normal might be the common lot of MOST, whoever gains prominence in some ways will be taken as evidence of the disposition or privileges of most or all. I actually believe one could probably find more than a few deluded Muslims, Jews, Roman Catholics, Mormons and MANY others of various traditions who WOULD like to "take over the world" — but MOST people of all such traditions take no such fantasies all too seriously as aims to actively strive for, by the suppression or oppression of others, no matter what hopes or dispositions they might harbor.

That you address me AS IF I "think Islam is just equal to other religions" shows how extreme your blind bigotry can be. I observe such statements from MANY of those ignorant of some of the most advanced forms of Universalist Pluralism which I admire, such as those found among many Unitarian Universalists, and I am never actually very inclined to say anything quite so STUPID as anything like that. I am NOT some totally absurd and unlikely sort of naïve moron who thinks "ALL religions are entirely good" — or that some forms of them are entirely nothing but EVIL and tools for evil, with NO redeeming qualities at all. Like human individuals, ALL religions are unique, and have unique variations, despite MANY general tendencies and limits — BOTH good and BAD. I tend to have a preference for supporting the ethical in ANY and ALL, the rational or irrational in many, to the extent it does not improperly ignore or deny that which is ethical, and reject that which I find unethical in ANY, and REPUDIATE that which I find extremely unethical in some, no matter how popular or powerful such groups might be.

Even some of the worst fanatics of some factions of some traditions will accept the idea ALL people should have equal rights to choose according to their own consciences, not the consciences of others — the most incompetent are simply inclined to think all others are totally incompetent if they do not choose entirely as they do, regardless of their differing circumstances of awareness and situations of likely opportunity or lack them. Clearly, to most, the wisest individuals of all major factions of religious and philosophcal traditions generally seek to permit great liberty to all humans, and to NOT impel strict adherence to the desired norms of any narrow factions. Clearly there are currently MANY extremist bigots active among MANY of the factions of Islam, as well as Christianity, Judaism, and other sects and traditions trying to EXCLUDE and vilify those of moderate, liberal and mystical disposition. Some of those most persecuted by the current ISIL/ISIS fanatics are groups which emphasize mystical elements. It is in the mystical that MANY of the relatively minuscule and mendacious concerns of many "practical" prejudices are exposed for what they are, and more of the universal principles of unitive pluralism arise, often amidst various strains of some mystical universalist monism, which have always seemed absurdly nonsensical to the sensibilities of most people, though they have often praised the ethical integrity of many monists, such as Spinoza, or Bruno, and Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish, Christian saints and sages, whether recognizing them as such or not.

I might be around a bit now, but have other things to do, and might sleep before I do much here, and might work on some page creations when I do get back to doing things here. Though I know there ARE and shall long be MANY problems for Humanity from MANY factions, I generally am optimistic about human potentials and inclinations. I have no delusions that most people are going to find any immense impression of "instant Karma" right away that will transform them all to devout saints or profoundly wise sages and philosophers — but I believe the best and most profound influences of MANY traditions continue to grow, gradually and often slowly, yet inexorably, even as the superficial and farcical delusions of many continue to contend and cause enmity and hostility among many, which flash and flare, but ultimately fizzle out, and fade away. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 03:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

Mahatma Gandhi laughing.jpeg
Truth alone will endure, all the rest will be swept away before the tide of time.
I must continue to bear testimony to truth even if I am forsaken by all.
Mine may today be a voice in the wilderness, but it will be heard when all other voices are silenced, if it is the voice of Truth.
~ Mahatma Gandhi ~

I am optimistic too, because Europe seems to be finally waking up to the Muslim invasion: all over Europe, anti-Islam parties are growing, and this very year UKIP and FN won the European Elections in Britain and France, respectively. What we need is a democratic solution to this problem; we don't want a civil war to break out in Europe in the next 30 years. We need to stop the mass immigration from Muslim countries now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I firmly believe what humanity most needs is NOT more "anti-[FILL IN THE BLANK]" parties, but more anti-bigotry sensibilities which rise above any and all partisan ideologies, of any religious or political creeds. I am NOT against the existence of political or religious creeds — I am against making ANY of them IDOLS to be either worshipped or demonized while the ESSENCE and SPIRIT of actual Truth and righteousness is OFTEN quite forgotten, even as NAMES of such ideals themselves become IDOLIZED, and assumed to be the exclusive "possession" of some "exalted group" of imbeciles and amoral or immoral morons who would dictate their own confused sense of morality to all others — whether they count themselves as Nazis, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics or ANY other group that might be specified — including those who might call themselves or be called "anarchists" and yet who have little profound sense of genuine anarchist principles or philosophy, and how any and all forms of fascist ignorance and delusions and unjust oppressions MUST be fought without hatred of the ignorant and confused, to the extent they can be, wherever they occur, and how ever mild and popular they may often be, in the name of whatever "holy" or "practical" causes some might claim. ~ Kalki··
I was just reading about the rape epidemic in Sweden, which used to be a safe country, but that now has the second highest number of rapes in the world thanks to mass Muslim immigration; 1 in every 4 Swedish women is now expected to be raped. Needless to say, it wasn't the Swedish men who suddenly got violent: 5% Muslim Pop commit nearly 77.6% of all rape crimes. So could you descend from your lofty castle in the clouds, land on earth, and tell me if this is actually okay with you? Would you not do ANYTHING to limit the mass immigration from Muslim countries to Sweden? (Maybe you think Swedish women should be raped, just so you don't have to call yourself a "bigot"?) ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Saint Augustine by Philippe de Champaigne.jpg
Love the sinner and hate the sin.
~ Augustine of Hippo ~

Even as a very young child I considered this statement of Augustine's one of the wisest of all the ages, and by the age of 7, having been someone who recognized MUCH of the worth and transcended much of the foolishness of MANY diverse philosophies and creeds by the time I was 5 or 6, I realized that this should be revised for a more general application that extended beyond all limited and partisan creeds, and their sometimes quite confused and contrary notions of "sin" or "error" and "evil" to formulations along the lines of "Hate the bigotries but not the bigots", or more elaborately "Hate the bigotries, but hate not ANY bigots — or you easily can fall into the foulest forms of bigotry oneself." This was something I had actually REALIZED to some extent years earlier, but began to mentally express with such words around the age of 7. ~ Kalki·· 13:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

Churchill-in-quebec-1944-23-0201a.gif
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities ... but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
~ Winston Churchill ~
Wilders-2010-cropped.jpg
I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam.
~ Geert Wilders ~

You are attacking a straw man. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I am afraid you and they are making IDOLS out of words by which to camouflage a very real bigotry. Islam has had and does have many highly ethical practitioners throughout the ages, and though currently there are certainly abhorrent bigots who have become prominent among people calling themselves muslims, and thinking THEMSELVES pure and holy and those who differ from them polluted and vile, there certainly have been many of these in MANY traditions at many times, and yet the traditions as a whole are NOT primarily vile. By using the Geert Wilders quote you seem to be casually EQUATING Islam with Sin and Evil and even absolute sin and evil — and I know many theists and atheists who would agree with such nonsense, and all the while seek to obscure or deny the profundity of their own bigotries, in making such assertions. I would continue with a few more points, but have to be leaving soon, and will probably be gone at least a few hours. ~ Kalki·· 14:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The God of the Qur'an is not all-loving, and does not love sinners:
"God loves not the unbelievers" (Sura 3:33)
"God loves not the impious and sinners" (Sura 2:277)
"God loves not evildoers" (Sura 3:58)
"God loves not the proud" (Sura 4:37)
"God loves not transgressors" (Sura 5:88)
"God loves not the prodigal" (Sura 6:142)
"God loves not the treacherous" (Sura 8:59)
"God is an enemy to unbelievers" (Sura 2:99)
This is obviously in stark contrast with the Christian view, that God's Love is Universal and Unconditional; in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus reminds us—
Spas vsederzhitel sinay.jpg
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
~ Jesus, Matthew 5:43-48 (KJV) ~
The principle you embrace—that we should hate the sin, but love the sinner—is thus a Christian one, and not Islamic. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It is quite Islamic, in the ultimate sense of that word, and not the bigoted ways which some who call themselves muslim or anti-muslims are prone to use it. I am quite aware that there is a lot of bigoted VILENESS and advocacy of what I hold to be EVIL in many "holy sciptures" INCLUDING the Jewsish and Christian ones, which accept or advocate various forms of what we today would recognize as SLAVERY, MURDER and GENOCIDE. That does NOT make the whole ranges of Jewish and Christian tradition something to be SCORNED or vilified, because some have and still seek to use such passages to promote EVIL intolerance and oppression. I do get tired of witnessing SO MANY of the stupid bigotries which can abound nearly ANYwhere — especially from people out to convince me that the WORST bigotries in the whole world are in the ways THEY hate, and it is unreasonable bigotry to deny the TRUTH of such bigotry, or even to call it bigotry. I generally call things as I see them, or remain silent, because I recognize I am dealing with people with learning impediments of various innate or socially developed forms. ~ Kalki·· 15:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't – you're going against the Qur'an, the perfect, unalterable, literal word of God. But that's okay, I don't blame you for it. I actually admire the mental efforts you make just to avoid facing reality. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The VERY SAME THING is said by many of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, and MANY others — in ALL their minutia, deficiencies, faults and flaws. I am someone no more bound by the lunacies of people who believe THEY know the ONLY words of GOD as bound up in some book, any more than I am by those of people who believe such are bound up ONLY in their own brain. I have NEVER fallen for that sort of INSANITY. So I hope you can get eventually get over yourself, and your bigoted views that Islam harbors the most dangerous bigotries in the world, and eventually are able to laugh at the stupidity of some of them. That's about all I have time to note, as I must be leaving. I have tarried a bit more than I had intended to already. ~ Kalki·· 15:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
You're just being ignorant now. You can't compare the Bible, which is composed of stories and narratives, written by different men (even if "divinely inspired"), over the ages, with the Qur'an, which is believed by Muslims to be the direct, perfect, unalterable, final, and literal word of God. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I actually had shut my browser off, and was leaving, when thinking upon my closing words, I realized I had in my haste probably used the term "tallied" when I had meant "tarried" — though "tallied" works in a way. I am an absurdist and I recognize MANY types of absurdity EVERYWHERE about which MOST people do not seem to have a clue, and I have been laughing inwardly and outwardly at such things since I was an infant. As a rational absurdist I am inclined to compare ANYTHING with ANYTHING else, for purposes of contrasting and discerning similarities and differences, and I often can perceive MANY aspects of things VERY swiftly that others cannot perceive in long periods of study. You are showing your ignorance if you are not aware that there ARE Christians and Jews who DO likewise believe that their scripture IS similarly "the direct, perfect, unalterable, final, literal word of God" — I have even talked to a few such persons at times, and found them generally decent folk, despite such delusions. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 15:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC) ~ Kalki·· 15:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks

wikilinks record[edit]

New record(!?) for the most wikilinks in a quote: William Henry Channing. (I don't believe so many wikilinks look good, but I thought you might like it.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It might be a new record, though I have done a few QOTDs with quite a few. I don’t think the blue links look too bad, but have always thought red links looked horrible, and that was one reason I did not use many links for many years, as the project wasn't developed enough to provide many blue ones. Thanks for creating the page, I might consider some quotes by him for QOTD now. ~ Kalki·· 02:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Nonviolence[edit]

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with non-violent and non-violence redirecting to pacifism.  While I advocate nonviolent civil disobedience—believing, as I do, that it is the most effective means by which to bring about meaningful change—I do not call myself a pacifist.  Perhaps this is a flawed outlook, but in my mind, pacifism is wrapped up in a moral opposition to ever fighting back against any sort of tyranny; in other words, the Christian notion of "turning the other cheek" taken to its radical conclusion, viz., that no one ought never engage in self-defence, even if the resolve to not engage in self-defence means imminent doom and suffering.  While all pacifism is clearly nonviolent, nonviolence—to me—is a broader spectrum, including those who have no moral opposition to violence but who believe that violence should be eschewed for pragmatic reasons.  (Certainly, pacifism is often associated in the minds of many with the notion of surrendering and subjugating oneself to illegitimate authority, while nonviolence, by contrast, seems to lack that connotation.)

Even if my feelings expressed above on these terms is just that—my feelings—it could still be argued that the term pacifism implies a belief that what one ought to do is to pacify one's enemies, which might mean never doing anything to enrage or upset said enemies, even if that means refraining from saying that one's enemies' practices are cruel or barbaric or unjust.  Perhaps pacifism requires a certain self-censorship in order to pacify the enemy.  Nonviolence, by contrast, doesn't necessarily hold as its goal that the enemy be passive, only that the individual battling the enemy refrain from using violence.  Thus, a nonviolent person can easily say anything she or he wants about the enemy (e.g., "You Nazis are scumbags for not respecting the equal rights of others"), and while such rhetoric would certainly fail to pacify the enemy, it would not negate the fact that the nonviolent person is successfully refraining from using violence.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

In the last few minutes, I was just briefly checking in here, and must soon be leaving, but I share your discomfort on the terminology links at present — I had thought of expanding a "Non-violence page" into a separate article within coming weeks, but there were many other priorities on my mind. Your views seem similar to mine in some regards, and though I actually believe I could probably embrace far harsher measures than you might easily do in FIGHTING error, and those who err, I tend to remain a bit more generous towards the potential worth and redemption of those who err, even severely. THUS, though I can approve of MANY forms of severe derision, and forgive understandable impulses to denigration, I do not actually approve denigration (where the worth of anyone or anything are undervalued or denied, sometimes to the point of being thought entirely "worthless" or entirely worse than that ), and believe even relatively genial or mild derision should often be used cautiously. I have not time to elaborate on much that I mean, as I must soon leave, but I will probably move up the idea on creating a full article on non-violence, and perhaps in the next week. I too do not self-employ the term Pacifist, in regards to myself, but I can perceive that others might, but usually out of ignorance of the broad ranges of what the word CAN mean to many, in various extremes, or of my actual inclinations on some matters. You might be familiar with the fact that I have openly called myself an absurdist — but I realize even now very few people have much inklings as to the extents of the absurdities which impel me to use that label. In coming months and years I hope to make that more apparent, and provide others MUCH to laugh at, in retrospect. I have to be off VERY quickly now — and after I leave I might be gone many hours, and before checking back in here I might watch the season premiere one of the relative few but increasing number of imaginative television shows I am interested in: Doctor Who — and post more quotes for that. Thanks for your note, and I believe we agree on that matter, quite extensively. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 19:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks
It was a pleasure reading that response.  There is good reason to be cautious in applying derision.  What you said reminded me of what I often say regarding racism and racists.  I say, I hate racism, but I do not hate the racist; I merely feel sorry for the racist, for it is very sorrowful when a person possesses such a skewed view on reality that she or he is able to hate someone for such irrational reasons.  Further, I'm inclined to suspect that, if the goal is to get the racist to cease hating other humans, then hating the human who is racist tends to be counter-productive since hate-of-humans doesn't really defeat hate-of-humans.  Thus, while I hate racism with every breath of my being, I tend to merely feel sorry for the racist.

Regarding my full approach to the notion of violence, I will say this.  I am ethically dedicated to the nonaggression axiom.  I regard it as objectively unethical to initiate force or fraud against the innocent/nonviolent.  But I am not ethically opposed to violence per se.  As long as one only ever uses force in self-defence against an aggressor (or in defence of others who consent to force being used on their behalf), and as long as the force is solely directed against the aggressor (never against the aggressor's family or friends or innocent bystanders), and as long as no one (whether intentionally or unintentionally) other than the aggressor is harmed, and as long as the force used to repel the aggressor or acquire restitution from the aggressor is proportional to the force initiated by the aggressor (e.g., don't shoot someone for stealing gum, since that would be way disproportionate)—as long as all of those conditions are met, force can be ethically justified, in my view.  Still, although force can be justified ethically as long as those conditions are met, that does not mean it's necessarily prudent to use force whenever all of those conditions are met.  During the Civil Rights movement, when cops were turning their hoses against blacks, and even sicking dogs to attack blacks, the blacks being attacked had every right to use violence against the aggressor-cops—but, one of the reasons the Civil Rights movement was so effective is that they employed nonviolence, that they refrained from defending themselves, even though they had a right to do so.  I conclude that in most cases, even when I can justify the use of defensive violence, it might be most practical to eschew it anyway, and to only use violence in the most extreme of cases, such as killing the Joker (to borrow an example from The Dark Knight) or killing Hitler or Bin Laden (to borrow examples from the real world).  Still, even then, one should never take an ounce of pleasure in the death of the villain.

My apologies if you've not seen Avatar, as I'm about to give away something that happens early in the film.  When the human first arrives on the alien planet, he is attacked by a vicious animal.  One of the natives on the planet saves his life by killing the vicious animal.  At first, the human cheers, happy at the turn of events, but the native chastises him for this, admonishing him never to take pleasure in the death of any creature since all life is valuable.  The native killed the creature because she had to in order to save the human, but she took no pleasure in the action and mourned the creature's death.  This is precisely how I feel with regards to the Joker or Hitler or Bin Laden.  I would be able to live with myself knowing that I've killed them, but I could not celebrate their deaths.  Thus, when news first spread that Bin Laden had been killed, when people began celebrating his death, it disgusted me, not because I had any feeling that Bin Laden should remain alive, but because no death, not even necessary deaths, should be seen as happy occasions.

I have a sneaking suspicious, based on what you've written, that you likely feel the same exact way as I regarding never celebrating a person's demise.  Back to the notions of derision and denigration, while I have no qualms with saying that Hitler was a horrendous man with horrendous impulses who committed disgusting, unconscionable acts, I cannot bring myself to say that I "hate" him, or anyone else.  I correlate this with my other position, that while Hitler was deserving of death for his vile crimes against humanity, nobody should ever take pleasure in the fact that he's dead—relief, perhaps, but never pleasure, never glee.

Best regards,

allixpeeke (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We seem in general agreement as to such policies, though one's perceptions as too particulars can always be subject to varying capacities of perception and conception of situations involved or influenced by others. ALL is Complex, and simple humility and honesty are usually the best guides to the best of paths amidst its complexities. I am just briefly back, and intend to do a layout that I had in mind before leaving, and then be off again for at least a few hours. ~ Kalki·· 23:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@allixpeeke: You write, "one of the reasons the Civil Rights movement was so effective is that they employed nonviolence, that they refrained from defending themselves". But the exact opposite is true. There was armed resistence. There were violent riots, attacks against the police, killing of officers, invasions of universities, and the worst kind of anti-white racism rethoric imaginable, with Malcolm X leading the way. Just read about "Black Power" and groups like the Black Panthers, which appeared precisely because Dr. King's non-violent movement, unlike the threat of violence, was so innefective. Sorry if the whitewashing of history in school textbooks has convinced you otherwise. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I do not need any whitewashing of history to agree with allixpeeke's general assertions, rather than yours — Malcolm X never retreated from the right of people to defend themselves, but he did renounce hatred and bigotries he had embraced, and began to see strategic advantages of King's policies towards the end. ~ Kalki·· 23:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


Dear DanielTom, an argument can be made that both the nonviolent civil disobedience of King, Rosa Parks, the SNCC, etc. and the alternative approach of groups like the Black Panthers played a role.  I do not mean to diminish the role played by the latter category, and I certainly respect the Black Panthers' contention that they had a right to defend themselves and a right to keep and bear arms in order to defend themselves.  It can be argued that the main contribution of the Black Panthers was to showcase a difference of approaches, so that those whites who were not on-board with racial equality and civil rights might be able to observe and compare.  By appearing extreme, the Black Panthers aided King, Parks, etc. in appearing like a moderate—and thus approachable—alternative for whites.

As for overall strategy, however, I still side with the notion of nonviolent civil disobedience because it seems that the biggest factor that aided in the shift of opinion amongst whites was the witness they bore to injustice committed by the political establishment against blacks.  It's hard to sit in front of one's television and watch cops turn hoses against people without sympathising with the humans being victimised, and insofar as this occurred, viewers began to see the victims as fellow human beings as opposed to the "other" race.

Conservative forces have had a strong tendency to sympathise with police, and when conservatives see cops battling with civilians, they tend to assume that the civilian has done something to deserve what the cops are meting out, that the civilian did something to start the conflict and that the cop is merely doing his job and trying to restore order.  Likewise, when a racist sees cops battling blacks, they can easily justify the actions of the cops by assuming that the black man must have done something rude, depraved, or outright criminal—that the black man started the conflict and that the cop is merely doing his job and trying to restore order.  But, when the viewer can clearly see that the civilian (black or otherwise) is not fighting back, it becomes inexorably harder to not recognise the civilian is innocent of any wrongs, and that a great injustice is being committed by the established power.

The reason I've given this so much thought is that I am an anarchist.  I believe a peaceful, orderly, and prosperous society can thrive without the state apparatus, and I, moreover, regard the state as a criminal entity that must be abandoned if justice is to be served.  But, I'm not going to achieve my goals through violent overthrow of the powers that be.  (1) If anarchists were to ban together and take up arms against the state, people will naturally assume that anarchists are just violent thugs who aim to do no good.  People would tend to side with the state against the rebels because the rebels will've appeared to be the aggressors and the state apparatchiks will've appeared to be the victims.  (2) As long as people are inclined to believe that authoritarianism is required for the stability of society, people will clamour for rulers to replace those ousted, to "fill the vacuum," and thus violent overthrow is more likely to lead to a rise in authoritarianism and tyranny rather than a libertarian ascension into anarchy.  In order for a libertarian revolution to be achieved, therefore, anarchists and other libertarians must find the means by which to change the minds of society, to showcase the inherent violence of the state while explaining to people—educating people—on why a stateless or libertarian alternative is (A) superior to the status quo and (B) ultimately desirable.  It's not unfair to say that this is a matter of marketing.  Nonviolent civil disobedience has a very educative effect, and that's why I regard it as the most effective tool at my disposal.  A violent overthrow, by contrast, would be, it seems to me, simply—and sadly—counterproductive.

Education is a slow process, and may not come too quickly.  Anarchists who endeavor to hasten it by joining in the propaganda of State Socialism or revolution make a sad mistake indeed. — Benjamin R. Tucker

If the revolution comes by violence, and in advance of light, the old struggle will have to be begun again. — Benjamin R. Tucker

Sincerely yours,
Allixpeeke (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is good to witness someone else be openly appreciative and assertive of many fundamental anarchist principles of social cooperation here. A deep repugnance at the persistent urges of some to command and control other human beings is very genuine and intense in most of those who come to clear understanding of these.
Though change is a constant thing in all human lives, positively progressive changes come only through expansion of awareness and appreciation of significant truths about reality and potentials within it, NOT through forced compliance with any groups desires for a relatively comfortable "norm." The greatest revolutionary changes come through the advancing of minds, and awareness, not the advances of armies or oppressions upon the liberties of human lives.
Throughout the ages many of the wisest and strongest of people have often asserted that the ultimate revolutions occur through the forces of the mind, and not through forces of arms, though obviously sometimes these have been necessary and unavoidable within many circumstances. Most groups involved in most revolutions have presumed that armed might associated with hierarchal command-obedience and control structures was the greatest might they could use or employ, which to those of deeper insight and broader awareness quite often simply testifies to the lack of imagination and intelligence in those who presume themselves appropriate commanders of others. Any astute assessment of history reveals that throughout the ages such positions of power to command and control others by force rather than intelligent instruction have been what the greatest and most virtuous have avoided creating or maintaining, and often the most petty and corrupt have most hungered to establish and expand. I have long discerned that the most small-minded are those who most insist on obedience to themselves or some artificially established "authority" with which they are aligned, while the greatest minds are most appreciative and tolerant of many broad ranges of diversity of will and aim. Throughout my years of work here I have endeavored to make more evident and accessible much of the best of diverse forms of thought and ideas, and I intend to continue doing so. Thanks for the good assertions on ethics. ~ Kalki·· 07:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@allixpeeke: suggested reading: [6] ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I had to catch some sleep, and have to be doing other things soon, but after typing a few waking thoughts, I just checked in here and read this within the last few minutes, and I must assert in responding to your summary comment, that despite your apparent intelligence you seem persistently dimwitted on some issues, DT. I state this because I yet believe you are strong enough to take criticisms of your apparent stances and remain open to genuinely honest engagement on issues. I assert, with MANY others, that a genuinely competent anarchist does not hate police, nor object to MANY of their services, though I suspect that many who rely upon the well devoted work of some to uphold artificial rules designed by artificial procedures designed to insure or protect certain desired levels of fairness or unfairness, to varying accepted degrees, can easily have their often shallow admiration turned to hate, were the devotion to integrity and honesty and fairness of some turned against them, and some "minor hypocritical dishonesties" which lead them into frauds or crime. Competent anarchists have varying notions of how to deal with authoritarian structures and suppositions, because anarchists are among those who vary most in their honest openness to influences, and they remain among the most open to variations of aim and effort in others, and evolution in themselves. I welcome the presence of allixpeeke here as someone who appears to have relatively broader and deeper understandings of many aspects of anarchist principles than most, and a will to assert and uphold them against authoritarian attitudes and suppositions. I also do hope that the apparent animosity you, DT, have towards some ideas and people can become tempered with growing awareness of far more than you yet seem very familiar with, and that new knowledge can and will bring you greater happiness and joy. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 14:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks


The wikiquote user DanielTom suggested above that I read an article.  In said article, it says, "Hating all cops because some of them are abusive isn't any more justifiable than hating all black people because some of them protested an officer involved shooting by burning down their own neighborhood."  As I wrote to Kalki yesterday (see above), I've no real hate for anyone, even those that I may define as evil, such as Hitler or Stalin.  Even the worst cop receives no "hate" from me, merely my utter lack of respect.

The article goes on to say, "Meanwhile, let any one of these cop hating [sic] cowards find themselves in a precarious spot, and watch how quickly they dial 911."  It should be noted that, even in a stateless society, one will be able to procure protective services.  To again quote Tucker, anarchists

are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats.  They believe that "the best government is that which governs least," and that that which governs least is no government at all.  Even the simple police function of protecting person and property they deny to governments supported by compulsory taxation.  Protection they look upon as a thing to be secured, as long as it is necessary, by voluntary association and cooperation for self-defence, or as a commodity to be purchased, like any other commodity, of those who offer the best article at the lowest price.  In their view it is in itself an invasion of the individual to compel him to pay for or suffer a protection against invasion that he has not asked for and does not desire.

Many authors have suggested that the market can provide protection from crime without creating a government-funded monopoly, and a strong case can be made that the competitive forces quality of the market will drive the quality of the service up far above anything the state can provide while also driving costs down below the rate we currently pay in taxes.  In 1849, Gustave de Molinari wrote The Production of Security[7], and while Frédéric Bastiat originally thought its conclusion a little too radical, upon Bastiat's deathbed, he described Molinari as his "spiritual heir."  Many authors since then have made elaborate cases in favour of replacing government-monopoly policing with market-based security, including Linda & Morris Tannehill in their classic The Market for Liberty[8] and Murray N. Rothbard in his For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

In any event, reference was made to supposed cop-hating cowards.  It's quite possible to acknowledge issues with our current law-enforcement system without hating anyone, and without being cowards.  The unfortunate ramifications of the increasing militarisation of police in America is something that Radley Balko has focused, and it's definitely worth acknowledging.  But, even beyond that, the point that police in America enforce laws that inherently infringe upon the natural, inalienable rights of individuals—e.g., laws regulating guns or drugs or gambling or prostitution—is regretable.  And, even if you can find a government cop in this country that never acts to enforce any of these victimless "crime" laws, said government cop is still a recipient of plunder.  Although the government calls it "taxation," it's quite impossible to find any way to define this activity which would make it not-theft if committed by you or me.  If it's theft when you or I take something from an innocent person without her or his consent, then it's still theft even whilst someone labels it "taxation."  Thus, we must invariably conclude that even the best government cop is a beneficiary of theft, which in turn invariably violates the natural, inalienable rights of those whose property is being plundered.  Acknowledging this in no way requires that one "hates" cops nor that one be a coward; rather, acknowledging this merely requires that one advocate for a more-equitable system.

The article says,

We can hold cops responsible for their mistakes without descending into this sort of juvenile, anarchist madness.  A healthy and rational society respects both the law and those entrusted with upholding it.

I wonder: do the people who seem to oppose the very existence of police officers have a plan B option?  We get rid of cops… and then what?  Have you guys thought this through at all?

I didn't think so.

I take issue with the article's writer assuming that anarchism would be madness, when it seems that statism fits the description of madness[9] much more aptly.  Suffice it to say, I've already acknowledged above what would replace government-monopoly policing: viz., the voluntaryist alternative.  Once society has ascended into anarchy, each individual will have four options to choose from vis-a-vis protection: (1) forgoing all protection (anarcho-pacifists would be the most likely to choose this option); (2) sitting all day one one's front porch with a shotgun (I doubt anyone will choose this option, since it would prevent one from having a very productive or happy life); (3) forming community watches or other security associations with one's neighbours; and (4) hiring one of the many private protection agencies that would aim to provide the highest level of safety at the lowest cost to the consumer.  I suspect most people would choose this fourth option since it seems to me like the most desirable of the options available, but nobody will be forced to choose this option as such force, if applied, would constitute a criminal invasion upon the rights of the person being forced to choose that option.  Finally, in response to the author saying that a healthy and rational society respects the law, I would qualify that by saying that it respects legitimate law, i.e., natural law—not those perversion of the law we label statutory law.  To be clear, unlike the fictional nihilist "the Joker,"[10] I do not advocate lawlessness.[11]  This point cannot be stressed more: anarchy is not lawlessness, anarchy is rulerlessness; anomie, by contrast, is lawlessness.  Moreover, lawlessness and rulerlessness are incompatible with one another.[12]  I'd recommend Natural Law; or The Science of Justice (1882) by Lysander Spooner and The Ethics of Liberty (1982) by Murray N. Rothbard.

Best regard
Allixpeeke (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
People really don't like paying taxes, do they. Re @Kalki: Bertrand Russell made the exact same point. I actually have a certain respect for the anarchist philosophy, because I don't find Locke's arguments for the right to private property persuasive, and I don't know of any argument that (successfully) addresses how private property arose in the first place (apart from appeals to God—or to "natural, inalienable rights", as Allixpeeke put it—which are quite understandably unconvincing to atheists). The realization that private property is indefensible leads to anarchism, and yet you will find that extreme libertarians (like Allixpeeke) do strongly believe in private property. This to me is almost as puzzling as their belief that one can not legitimately question—let alone interfere with—the result of "free" markets (which don't exist in reality). @Allixpeeke: as I've told Kalki before, all this libertarian talk is incredibly dull and unpersuasive to me, quite simply because I (like utilitarians) believe that happiness, not liberty, is the ultimate good. (That is, happiness is the good itself, to which liberty is but a means.) Of course there's nothing stopping libertarians from declaring liberty to also be a good in itself. What I think is clear is that it certainly is not the only good. Cheers. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

words are ALWAYS variables, which it takes time and effort to PROVISIONALLY define within any circumstances of association[edit]

I speak here as an absurdist who LIKES honest discussion on honest disagreements on many matters, and doesn't mind derision much, so long as it is honest, but does tend to get irritated when it is inaccurate, or easily misleading to many, no matter how honestly and sincerely believed. We all are taxed to some extent by trite attempts at over-simplification of complex matters, and failure to appreciate that there are ALWAYS many facets to human motivations and inclinations that cannot be formulated by either socialist or selfish assumptions or capitalist or communist or communitarian theories. One reason many people avoid discussion of very complex subjects is that they so often become easily mired in the mortifying mixtures of simplistic and polarizing assumptions born of many forms of bias, which are more aimed at proving the presumed "superiority" of one's ideas and aims and the innate "inferiority" of others, than they are at determining and appreciating vitally important truths.

I have had many other things to attend to in recent days and weeks, and expect that to remain a situation for at least a few weeks yet, but don't mind attending to such discussions, when time permits. I actually am appreciative of opportunities to discuss some relatively important issues that concern nearly all forms of social communion, with people who have strong attachment to some views which differ from my own, in differing ways, and yet seem to share similar resolves to honestly and effectively stating them, as best they can.

There are MANY prejudices and FALSE assumptions at work in MANY people's minds and as an absurdist who is probably far more willing to deal with MANY complexities of MANY subjects than ANY who trust to "authorities" and even most who would call themselves anarchists, or are content to label themselves or others anything, AS IF such were the DEFINITE words to sum up the immensely diverse wills and ideas of human beings, I have LONG been aware of MUCH the cacophony of nonsense people often embrace, so long as they can find ways to diminish any advantages of their adversaries and opponents to the satisfaction of their egos and the perceived services of their causes, whether it is actually contributory to clear understanding of relevant facts or not. I am presently NOT inclined to present MANY of my thoughts on such subjects here, but to give only a few indications of some of them.

I assert that a competent anarchist can see how false, fragile and presumptuous many statist assumptions are whether they be focused on defending many pervasive communist or capitalist policies and practices, and a competent socialist can see similar deficiencies of many capitalist assumptions and arguments, but a competent absurdist maintains a skepticism and general joviality which can see that there are merits and deficiencies and flaws in MOST arguments and strategies and ideologies that go unrecognized by both friends and foes of many of them.

Despite many of the deficiencies and flaws of democratic arrangements based on votes, to this day, so long as it is tempered by the respect for minorities to differ and diverge on many matters, and the innate rights or abilities of minorities to resist and rebel against unjust oppressions, it certainly remains ethically preferable to most available alternatives, which usually do not take much into account beyond various forms of brute force. These are OFTEN employed in ways that DO corrupt even democratic societies into systems of electing who gets to play at setting up fascist or gangster dictatorships until they are somehow repudiated and rejected, as knowledge and will grows in such ways as people are no longer willing to tolerate many existing forms of these.

Whatever formal or informal procedures and policies of economic strategies might be embraced, I adamantly believe that fundamental to any stable ethical or social systems are extensive recognition and respect for Humility, Courage, Honesty and Compassion, and these eventually lead to many diverse formulations in regard to propriety and the best means to insure or develop proper respect for Justice, Unity, Liberty and the pursuits of happiness. Ultimately good accord and harmony with Reality provides the most secure, enduring and greatest means to happiness, and joyfulness, and these ultimately cannot be attained without a very definite sense of devotion to more than the momentary or selfish appearances within human life. This leads many people to MANY diverse views, but MOST of these are often reconciled by various forms of rational ethical mysticism which RESPECTS many diversities of form and thus LIBERTY, rather than seeking to MOLD all others to fit poorly into such forms as they might prefer, whether their stated motives be personal, social or spiritual.

At this point all involved in this discussion probably have MANY areas of agreement, but some of our differences could be summarized as inclinations to differing forms of economic or ethical assumptions on some matters.

It may well be seen in retrospect even now, that the greatest of all revolutions and advances were never violent ones, but inexorable progress that occurred despite violent passions and antagonisms of those for and against various forms of change and stability. I do tend to truly believe that the ultimate revolutions of human societies are those where access to information grows and develops to such an extent that people simply attain the ability and will to exchange and develop diverse ideas rather than exclude and scorn them, because they are not yet already popular or established norms within their own particular circles of acquaintances and allies. It is such potentials that those with the most insecurity about their often fragile ideas seek to diminish or entirely exclude, in often desperate and fierce hope in whatever force they can muster against those who are vulnerable to assaults in ways other than direct confrontation with their ideas, whether it be appeal to arms or to popular prejudices of those willing to apply them, by "official" agencies or through mob persuasions and threats of various kinds.

I am an absurdist who is VERY familiar with MANY of the miseries which abide in this world, and I persist in the honestly asserting indications of what I believe to be the "absurd truth" that one cannot long persist in any form happiness without such respect for Justice, Unity, Liberty and such Joyous Universal Love as is developed by many mystics who embrace many forms of reason, and yet also see beyond them, and do not tuck their minds away, pretending that there is nothing beyond what is apparent and plain and easily discussed with words, and manipulated by human minds. I believe that ultimate happiness and health for each and all dwells in developing their own awareness and appreciation of MANY mystical aspects of Reality, in fullest possible respect and accord with ethical and rational assessments of the often unique and often incommunicable aspects of these which can exist in unique individuals and societies. The selfish and the social all can have acceptable or atrocious aims, but the most wise see beyond the many selfish and social arguments which many present, and realize that there are ALWAYS unknown and largely unknowable factors at work in all things, and the atrocious cannot endure for long, and the acceptable itself shall ultimately be tested by the amazing and astonishing agencies of Necessity beyond all definitions. So it goes Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC) + tweaks