It takes a nation to protect the nation
I will give a fuller explanation of all these terms in due course.
Idealists (NFs), as a temperament, are passionately concerned with personal growth and development. Idealists strive to discover who they are and how they can become their best possible self -- always this quest for self-knowledge and self-improvement drives their imagination. And they want to help others make the journey. Idealists are naturally drawn to working with people, and whether in education or counseling, in social services or personnel work, in journalism or the ministry, they are gifted at helping others find their way in life, often inspiring them to grow as individuals and to fulfill their potentials.
All Idealists share the following core characteristics:
Idealists are sure that friendly cooperation is the best way for people to achieve their goals. Conflict and confrontation upset them because they seem to put up angry barriers between people. Idealists dream of creating harmonious, even caring personal relations, and they have a unique talent for helping people get along with each other and work together for the good of all. Such interpersonal harmony might be a romantic ideal, but then Idealists are incurable romantics who prefer to focus on what might be, rather than what is. The real, practical world is only a starting place for Idealists; they believe that life is filled with possibilities waiting to be realized, rich with meanings calling out to be understood. This idea of a mystical or spiritual dimension to life, the "not visible" or the "not yet" that can only be known through intuition or by a leap of faith, is far more important to Idealists than the world of material things.
Highly ethical in their actions, Idealists hold themselves to a strict standard of personal integrity. They must be true to themselves and to others, and they can be quite hard on themselves when they are dishonest, or when they are false or insincere. More often, however, Idealists are the very soul of kindness. Particularly in their personal relationships, Idealists are without question filled with love and good will. They believe in giving of themselves to help others; they cherish a few warm, sensitive friendships; they strive for a special rapport with their children; and in marriage they wish to find a "soulmate," someone with whom they can bond emotionally and spiritually, sharing their deepest feelings and their complex inner worlds.
Idealists are relatively rare, making up no more than 15 to 20 percent of the population. But their ability to inspire people with their enthusiasm and their idealism has given them influence far beyond their numbers.
who decided Oprah winfrey was an idealist?, especialy as she's a one per%enter, or is that presenter?.
Yes, there's lots of ideas compressed into a few words here.
Conventionally, an idealist is someone to be respected and admired. But in our context, an Idealist is someone who avoids and ignores reality because he/she is a coward and cannot face it, so instead they construct an alternate reality around the given facts. So, no need to be upset about Oprah being called an idealist!
Never mInd Oprah, I'd question why Gandhi and Mandela are in that category. Mandela was a terrorist (he behaved far better in victory than many anticipated). Gandhi was assassinated for his role in the creation of Pakistan. History might prove the assassin right.
As for MIQASHI, I would re-jig the priority. Our principle enemies are not the moderates or the islamists. Those principally responsible for the state of Europe are not muslims at all. Muslims are just their tools.
I'd re-jig it as SHAMIQI or something. In fact, I'd like to replace "idealists" with "internationalists". The "internationals" are the multi-culturalists. So perhaps leave out Moderate muslims and put Multi-culturalists in their place. The internationalists became the multi-culturalists. But their first thoughts were to import foreigners and foreign cultures with no regard to the long-term consequences (or perhaps they wanted the long-term consequences).
Maybe leave it as MIQASHI, just switch out Moderates.
If there is any hope of Europe not descending into a balkanized Northern Ireland, then it lies with getting the moderates out of islam.
I'd also not give revolutionary communists like Weyman Bennett as mere "sympathisers". For the scared-to-be-violent revolutionary communists like him, the muslims are their shock troops. That's more than just a sympathiser - it's a manipulator. Maybe the multi-culturalists should all be called manipulators (they share different long-term objectives, but their short-term goal/ideology is the same).
I've also switched round Rowen Williams. I think he sympathises with islam. Rowen Williams would be happy to see the whole nation as muslims, provided we were all in the thrall of the ArchImam of Westminster. Jack Straw was trying to introduce legislation to protect islam from criticism within weeks of the fall of WTC. His actions pre-date the censorship plans of the OIC by about a decade. Maybe we need a category of Enablers, and put Jack Straw in that. His actions seem to go further than appeasement.
I think we may get bogged down on personalitys with this. It may be as well to accept we us inderviduals names as examples, because most of the seem to be 'sympathisers' and 'cowards' along with anything else they maybe.
We need to understand how these people fight and to combat them and their ilk.