Pumpking versus Barak Obama

DCP_0186When Pumpking was a young cat, he was a pacifist. I saw him once attacked by a feral; although twice the size of the feral, he only cried and would not lift a paw, let alone claw someone. Then UPO, the cat sovereign of all the cats of the household, died. Pumpking was UPO’s natural heir, the biggest male of all the cats, no one doubted his ascendancy. Nevertheless, the girls started bitching, claws drawn, hissing, spitting, and in general, the cat population in the house was in turmoil. Pumpking, the pacifist, took them one by one and beat them up. Within a couple of hours, harmony was reinstated, and all the cat boys started adoring Pumpking and the girls respected him.

 For a couple of days he ate first, and even though there was plenty of food in many plates, he ate alone while everyone else was watching and drooling. Only when he finished his meal, did the others dare come to eat. A few days later, Pumpking allowed everyone else to eat first. To this day, he watches over his subjects and cares for everyone’s wellbeing. Of course, he is far from being a pacifist; whenever he deems it necessary, in spite of my objections, he claws whoever he thinks deserves it.

What happened to the pacifist? I asked Pumpking, how come he changed? He said, circumstances changed, so he too needed to change.

 “But you were a pacifist, you had ideals, ‘no clawing, no matter what’ was your motto. Your ideal was, ‘do not hurt another cat.’ Why did you change that?” I asked.

 “I didn’t,” he replied. “I prevented them from hurting each other and ultimately, themselves a lot more by hurting them a little. You know, as king, I have to be pragmatic.”

  “You are saying that being pragmatic is to give up on one’s ideals?”

 “That depends on the ideals,” Pumpking explained. “If said ideals are extreme, they are not pragmatic. I have a household to run. Sticking to extreme pacifistic ideals with cats who do not share the same ideals will create chaos, and they will hurt each other much more than I hurt them. Imagine a community of pacifists, who will not fight, no matter what. Imagine that this community is run over by another, barbaric nation, who wants to wipe them out. If they maintain their pacifistic ideals, they will be wiped out and with them, the pacifistic ideal. So to preserve the ideal for a time, when it will gain consensus, they must fight.”

 “So you are saying that you have compromised your ideals in order to preserve them? Sounds kind of paradoxical, don’t you think?”

 “Look at your world leaders. It’s OK they get elected with lip service to some ideals. When they are elected however, if they do not become pragmatic, if they do not show power and thereby gain respect, they are thought weak, and then they will be manipulated.”


 “By being paid lip-service, by holding him to his ideals and meanwhile dragging out time to do what they want. And then, this idealist in the leader position will try to achieve agreement with other nations because he does not believe in bullying, and his opponents gain more time to do what they want.”

 “And then?”

 “In the end, he will have to use force, but now, he will have to use much more force and he will hurt many more. He could have avoided that by using a little force to set things right in the beginning. Wanting to be politically correct and airing ideals of ‘let’s talk about it, let’s reach concession’ made him manipulable. So either barbarism wins or pragmatism.”

 “What about the ideals? Aren’t they worth living for?”

 “Meow, if pragmatism wins, with it, ideals will survive, even as some future goal. However, if the ideal wins in the short term, it is most likely that it will be its own terminator like the pacifistic ideals that allowed the barbaric nation to exterminate the community of pacifists.”

Tags: , , , ,

20 Responses to “Pumpking versus Barak Obama”

  1. Other variant is possible also

  2. Antiaginmoon says:

    You have a very cool blog! Thanks for this review, I found a lot of new and interesting. You are in my bookmarks

  3. Melissa says:

    nice article. I would love to follow you on twitter. By the way, did anyone hear that some Iranian hacker had busted twitter yesterday.

  4. Clara says:

    Thanks, Melissa. Go to http://www.claraszalai.com/ and click on “Follow me on Twitter” in the left upper corner of the home page.

  5. Paydaymen says:

    Thank you for a good story, I really enjoyed your blog. Be sure to give a link to your friends!

  6. Dublemen says:

    Hello, I want to congratulate your site with 2010. I am sure that, in this new year, your article will please his readers.

  7. Kellee Luxon says:

    Thank you very much for providing this post.

  8. SEO Company says:

    I admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time… however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues.

  9. MrBarns says:

    Your blog is so informative … ..I just bookmarked you….keep up the good work!!!!

    Hey, I found your blog in a new directory of blogs. I dont know how your blog came up, must have been a typo, anyway cool blog, I bookmarked you. :)

  10. China and Russia put the blame on some screwed up experiments of US for the earthquake that happened in Haiti.
    Chinese and Russian Military scientists, these reports say, are concurring with Canadian researcher, and former Asia-Pacific Bureau Chief of Forbes Magazine, Benjamin Fulford, who in a very disturbing video released from his Japanese offices to the American public, details how the United States attacked China by the firing of a 90 Million Volt Shockwave from the Americans High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) facilities in Alaska
    If we can recollect a previous news when US blamed Russia for the earthquake in Georgio. What do you guys think? Is it really possible to create an earthquake by humans?
    I came across this article about Haiti Earthquake in some blog it seems very interesting, but conspiracy theories have always been there.

  11. Clara says:

    I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. However, I think that the need to create conspiracy theories arises from a worldview of wanting to live in a causal world, where every event has a known cause; and so, random events and chaotic dynamics become conspiracy theories when translated into a causal framework. So if God did not cause it, then there must be some powerful individuals, who did.

  12. OP: I could be daff (lord knows I have been told lol) but you made totally no sense what so ever…

  13. I am to a great extent impressed with the article I have just read. I wish the author of claraszalai.com can continue to provide so much productive information and unforgettable experience to claraszalai.com readers. There is not much to tell except the following universal truth: The most important thoughts are the most easily forgotten I will be back.

  14. daniel says:

    I am confused, how can something be, if it does not have a reason to become? a “something” that caused or “started” it in the first place? You talk of chaotic dynamics, how does that kind of a dynamic come to exist? what is the “place” that it is created from?
    Also, how can one define the “right” pragmatic” ideas that are good for a continuing of a society, a healthy one that is. I’m sure some very vicious rulers that kill and slay ANYONE that does not agree with their way, see themselves as being “pragmatic” in order for them to continue what they think is right.
    Cats rule!

  15. Clara says:

    “I am confused, how can something be, if it does not have a reason to become? a “something” that caused or “started” it in the first place?”

    Your question assumes as if given, that everything has a reason. This is a belief, an assumption that is not necessarily true. Also, that everything has a cause is an assumption, a belief. This belief describes a causal world where there is a cause and then, an effect. There do exist causal processes, but these are not the only processes that exists in the world. Cause/effect is based on the assumption that these (causal) processes occur in spacetime, for a cause is before the effect, which means, TIME.

    Chaotic dynamics do not necessarily occur in spacetime. Chaotic dynamics means non-linearity, which means, that A influences and changes B and B influences and changes A that changes B that changes A and so on. This is a non-causal process, as you cannot pinpoint what causes what.

    The “right pragmatic” ideas and ideals for the continuance of a society can never be any defined ideal, be it as good as it might be. Any defined ideal that does not change when times change, will guarantee the demise of that society, and it does not matter how wonderful these ideals are, for they will always lead to paradoxes. Take for example an ideal of sanctity of life, that all life is sacred. Beautiful ideal. However, not allowing abortions, saving every life would lead to a population of 50 billion people, which would be killing that society. This is why I believe that only a dynamic way of relating could be pragmatic, that is, something that changes as the need arises for change.

    Yes, cats rule.

  16. I really like when people are expressing their opinion and thought. So I like the way you are writing

  17. Maxine says:

    claraszalai.com, how do you do it?


  18. Clara says:

    Do what?

  19. Spanish John says:

    hi everybody

    Just saying hello while I read through the posts

    hopefully this is just what im looking for looks like i have a lot to read.

  20. Fallgaigomo says:

    Please delete this message….

Leave a Reply