text:
Albert Jay Nock

Albert Jay Nock (13 October 1870 – 19 August 1945) was an American author, educational theorist, libertarian, social critic of the early and middle 20th century, and a philosophical founder of the modern, libertarian conservative movement later embraced by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and Ron Paul.

Quotes

 * The practical reason for freedom is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fiber can be developed — we have tried law, compulsion and authoritarianism of various kinds, and the result is nothing to be proud of.
 * "On Doing the Right Thing", in The American Mercury (1925)

 * The mind is like the stomach. It is not how much you put into it that counts, but how much it digests — if you try to feed it with a shovel you get bad results.
 * The Reader's Digest, Vol. 6 (October 1927), p. 343

 * Once, I remember, I ran across the case of a boy who had been sentenced to prison, a poor, scared little brat, who had intended something no worse than mischief, and it turned out to be a crime. The judge said he disliked to sentence the lad; it seemed the wrong thing to do; but the law left him no option. I was struck by this. The judge, then, was doing something as an official that he would not dream of doing as a man; and he could do it without any sense of responsibility, or discomfort, simply because he was acting as an official and not as a man. On this principle of action, it seemed to me that one could commit almost any kind of crime without getting into trouble with one's conscience. Clearly, a great crime had been committed against this boy; yet nobody who had had a hand in it — the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the complaining witness, the policemen and jailers — felt any responsibility about it, because they were not acting as men, but as officials. Clearly, too, the public did not regard them as criminals, but rather as upright and conscientious men. The idea came to me then, vaguely but unmistakably, that if the primary intention of government was not to abolish crime but merely to monopolize crime, no better device could be found for doing it than the inculcation of precisely this frame of mind in the officials and in the public; for the effect of this was to exempt both from any allegiance to those sanctions of humanity or decency which anyone of either class, acting as an individual, would have felt himself bound to respect — nay, would have wished to respect. This idea was vague at the moment, as I say, and I did not work it out for some years, but I think I never quite lost track of it from that time.
 * "Anarchist's Progress" in The American Mercury (1927); § III : To Abolish Crime or to Monopolize It?

 * The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose. No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient.
 * "The Criminality of the State" in American Mercury (March 1939)

 * "Democratic" State practice is nothing more or less than State practice. It does not differ from Marxist State practice, Fascist State practice, or any other. Here is the Golden Rule of sound citizenship, the first and greatest lesson in the study of politics: you get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the State to do things for you carries with it the equivalent power to do things to you.
 * "The Criminality of the State" in American Mercury (March 1939). A similar statement was later made by Jerry Ford

 * I may mention one or two characteristic traits as having no virtue whatever, because they are mine by birth, not by acquisition. I have always been singularly free of envy, jealousy, covetousness; I but vaguely understand them. Having no ambition, I have always preferred the success of others to my own, and had more pleasure in it. I never had the least desire for place or prominence, least of all for power; and this was fortunate for me because the true individualist must regard power over others as preeminently something to be loathed and shunned.
 * "Autobiographical Sketch" (1939); published in The State of the Union : Essays in Social Criticism (1991), edited by Charles H. Hamilton, p. 26

On Doing the Right Thing and Other Essays (1928)
Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York and London, 1928
 * Everyone knows that the State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime… It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, weather the property of citizen or of alien. There is, for example, no human right, natural or Constitutional, that we have not seen nullified by the United States Government. Of all the crimes that are committed for gain or revenge, there is not one that we have not seen it commit—murder, mayhem, arson, robbery, fraud, criminal collusion and connivance.
 * p. 143
 * The anarchist, moreover, does not believe that any considerable proposition of human beings will promptly turn into rogues and adventuresses, sots and strumpets, as soon as they find themselves free to do so; but quite the contrary. It seems to be a fond notion with the legalists and authoritarians that the vast majority of mankind would at once begin to thieve and murder and generally misconduct itself if the restraints of law and authority were removed. The anarchist, whose opportunities to view mankind in its natural state are perhaps as good as the legalist’s, regards this belief as devoid of foundation.
 * p. 176

Our Enemy, the State (1935)

 * Our Enemy, the State (1935) (PDF)

 * The mentality of an army on the march is merely so much delayed adolescence; it remains persistently, incorrigibly and notoriously infantile.
 * p. 28

 * As far back as one can follow the run of civilization, it presents two fundamentally different types of political organization. This difference is not one of degree, but of kind. It does not do to take the one type as merely marking a lower order of civilization and the other a higher; they are commonly so taken, but erroneously. Still less does it do to classify both as species of the same genus — to classify both under the generic name of "government," though this also, until very lately, has been done, and has always led to confusion and misunderstanding. A good understanding of this error and its effects is supplied by Thomas Paine. At the outset of his pamphlet called Common Sense, Paine draws a distinction between society and government. While society in any state is a blessing, he says, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." In another place, he speaks of government as "a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world."
 * p. 35

 * It would seem that in Paine's view the code of government should be that of the legendary King Pausole, who prescribed but two laws for his subjects, the first being, Hurt no man, and the second, Then do as you please.
 * p. 36

 * We have two distinct types of political organization to take into account; and clearly, too, when their origins are considered, it is impossible to make out that the one is a mere perversion of the other. Therefore when we include both types under a general term like government, we get into logical difficulties; difficulties of which most writers on the subject have been more or less vaguely aware, but which, until within the last half-century, none of them has tried to resolve.
 * p. 38

 * The positive testimony of history is that the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation. No primitive State known to history originated in any other manner.
 * p. 44

 * It may now be easily seen how great the difference is between the institution of government, as understood by Paine and the Declaration of Independence, and the institution of the State. … The nature and intention of government … are social. Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
 * p. 49

 * As Dr. Sigmund Freud has observed, it can not even be said that the State has ever shown any disposition to suppress crime, but only to safeguard its own monopoly of crime. … Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class.
 * p. 50

 * The State always moves slowly and grudgingly towards any purpose that accrues to society's advantage, but moves rapidly and with alacrity towards one that accrues to its own advantage; nor does it ever move towards social purposes on its own initiative, but only under heavy pressure, while its motion towards anti-social purposes is self-sprung.
 * p. 51

 * There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man's needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means. The primitive exercise of the political means was, as we have seen, by conquest, confiscation, expropriation, and the introduction of a slave-economy. The conqueror parcelled out the conquered territory among beneficiaries, who thenceforth satisfied their needs and desires by exploiting the labour of the enslaved inhabitants. The feudal State, and the merchant-State, wherever found, merely took over and developed successively the heritage of character, intention and apparatus of exploitation which the primitive State transmitted to them; they are in essence merely higher integrations of the primitive State. The State, then, whether primitive, feudal or merchant, is the organization of the political means. Now, since man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion, he will employ the political means whenever he can – exclusively, if possible; otherwise, in association with the economic means.
 * p. 59

 * In every civilization, however generally prosaic, however addicted to the short-time point of view on human affairs, there are always certain alien spirits who, while outwardly conforming to the requirements of the civilization around them, still keep a disinterested regard for the plain intelligible law of things, irrespective of any practical end. They have an intellectual curiosity, sometimes touched with emotion, concerning the august order of nature; they are impressed by the contemplation of it, and like to know as much about it as they can, even in circumstances where its operation is ever so manifestly unfavourable to their best hopes and wishes.
 * p. 209

Free Speech and Plain Language (1936)

 * Free Speech and Plain Language The Atlantic Monthly (January 1936)

 * I had a desultory talk with one devotee of expediency not long ago, a good friend and a thoroughly excellent man. He was all worked up over the activities of Communists and what he called pink Socialists, especially in the colleges and churches. He said they were corrupting the youth, and he was strong for having them coerced into silence. I could not see it that way. I told him it seemed pretty clear that Mr. Jefferson was right when he said that the effect of coercion was "to make one half the people fools and the other half hypocrites, and to support roguery and error all over the earth"; look at Germany and Italy! I thought our youth could manage to bear up under a little corrupting — they always have — and if they were corrupted by Communism, they stood a first-rate chance to get over it, whereas if they grew up fools or hypocrites, they would never get over it. I added that Mr. Jefferson was right when he said that "it is error alone which needs the support of government; truth can stand by itself." One glance at governments anywhere in the world proves that. Well, then, the surest way to make our youth suspect that there may be something in Communism would be for the government to outlaw it.

 * Get up in one of our industrial centres today and say that two and two make four, and if there is any financial interest concerned in maintaining that two and two make five, the police will bash your head in. Then what choice have you, save to degenerate either into a fool or into a hypocrite? And who wants to live in a land of fools and hypocrites?

 * In general I wish we were in the habit of conveying our meanings in plain explicit terms rather than by indirection and by euphemism, as we so regularly do. My point is that habitual indirection in speech supports and stimulates a habit of indirection in thought; and this habit, if not pretty closely watched, runs off into intellectual dishonesty. The English language is of course against us. Its vocabulary is so large, it is so rich in synonyms, it lends itself so easily and naturally to paraphrase, that one gets up a great facility with indirection almost without knowing it. Our common speech bristles with mere indirect intimations of what we are driving at; and as for euphemisms, they have so far corrupted our vernacular as to afflict us with a chronic, mawkish and self-conscious sentimentalism which violently resents the plain English name of the realities that these euphemisms intimate. This is bad; the upshot of our willingness to accept a reality, provided we do not hear it named, or provided we ourselves are not obliged to name it, leads us to accept many realities that we ought not to accept. It leads to many and serious moral misjudgments of both facts and persons; in other words, it leads straight into a profound intellectual dishonesty.

 * The glossary of politics is so full of euphemistic words and phrases — as in the nature of things it must be — that one would suppose politicians must sometimes strain their wits to coin them.

 * Bad as euphemism is, however, indirection is worse. I notice that a writer in a recent magazine gives this advice to budding newspaper men:
 * Even where opinion is admitted, as on the editorial page, fact is often more desirable than opinion. Thus it is better to scrap an editorial calling the mayor a liar and a crook, and to write another which, by reciting facts without using adjectives and without calling names, makes it obvious that the mayor is a liar and a crook.
 * In the view of journalism, that is first-class good advice, because we are all so accustomed to indirection that a lapse from it affects us unpleasantly and sets us against the person or organ that indulges in any such lapse; and that will not do for journalism, because it makes people stop their subscriptions. In the view of intellectual integrity, on the other hand, this advice seems to me about the worst imaginable. In the first place, if the mayor is a liar and a crook, saying so is certainly "reciting facts." It is not calling names," it is not uttering abuse or vituperation; it is a simple and objective recital of fact, and only a weak and sticky supersensitiveness prevents our seeing it as such. In the second place, indirection is so regularly the vehicle of propaganda that the use of it marks the man with an axe to grind. The advice which I have just cited contemplates a person who is more concerned with producing an effect on people's minds than he is with the simple expression of truth and fact. This may be good journalism, — I am not entitled to an opinion about that, — but I can find nothing to say for it on general grounds.

 * Plain language sounds purely objective. On the one hand, it has not the accent of mere vituperation, it is thoroughly dignified; and on the other, it is not the language of a person who is mainly concerned with wangling somebody into believing something. When Mr. Jefferson wrote that one of his associates in Washington's cabinet was "a fool and a blabber," his words, taken in their context, make exactly the same impression of calm, disinterested and objective appraisal as if he had remarked that the man had black hair and brown eyes. Or again, while we are about it, let us examine the most extreme example of this sort of thing that I have so far found in English literature, which is Kent's opinion of Oswald, in King Lear:
 * Kent. Fellow, I know thee.
 * Osw. What dost thou know me for?
 * Kent. A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking whoreson, glass-gazing, & super-servicable, finical rogue; onetrunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd, in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch.
 * Now, considering Kent's character and conduct, as shown throughout the play, I doubt very much that those lines should be taken as merely so much indecent blackguarding.… an actor who ranted through them in the tone and accent of sheer violent diatribe would ruin his part. Frank Warrin cited those lines the other day, when he was telling me how much he would enjoy a revival of Lear, with our gifted friend Bill Parke cast for the part of Kent. He said, "Can't you hear Bill's voice growing quieter and quieter, colder and colder, deadlier and deadlier, all the way through that passage?" Angry as Kent is, and plain as his language is, his tone and manner must carry a strong suggestion of objectivity in order to keep fully up to the dramatist's conception of his role. Kent is not abusing Oswald; he is merely, as we say, "telling him."

 * When we speak freely, let us speak plainly, for plain speech is wholesome; especially, plain speech about public affairs and public men.

A Little Conserva-tive (1936)

 * A Little Conserva-tive The Atlantic Monthly (October 1936)

 * For more than a quarter of a century I have been known, in so far as I was known at all, as a radical. It came about in this way: I was always interested in the rerum cognoscere causas, liking to get down below the surface of things and examine their roots. This was purely a natural disposition, reflecting no credit whatever on me, for I was born with it. ... Therefore when the time came for me to describe myself by some convenient label, I took one which marked the quality that I thought chiefly differentiated me from most of the people I saw around me. They habitually gave themselves a superficial account of things, which was all very well if it suited them to do so, but I preferred always to give myself a root-account of things, if I could get it. Therefore, by way of a general designation, it seemed appropriate to label myself a radical. Likewise, also, when occasion required that I should label myself with reference to particular social theories or doctrines, the same decent respect for accuracy led me to describe myself as an anarchist, an individualist, and a single-taxer.

 * On the positive side, my anarchism came mainly as a corollary to the estimate of human capacity for self-improvement which I had picked up from Mr. Jefferson. His fundamental idea appeared to be that everyone answering to the zoological classification of homo sapiens is a human being, and therefore is indefinitely improvable. The essence of it is that homo sapiens in his natural state really wishes and means to be as decent towards his fellow-beings as he can, and under favorable conditions will progress in decency.

 * Granting this premise, the anarchist position appeared logical to me, as it did to Prince Kropotkin and Bakunin. Putting it roughly, if all men are human, if all bipeds classifiable as homo sapiens are human beings, social harmony and a general progress in civilization will be far better brought about by methods of free agreement and voluntary association than by constraint, whether directly under force, or under the menace of force which is always implicit in obedience to law.

 * My individualism was a logical extension of the anarchist principle beyond its narrow application to one particular form or mode of constraint upon the individual. The thing that interested me, as it interested Emerson and Whitman, was a general philosophy of life which regards human personality as the greatest and most respect-worthy object in the world, and as a complete end-in-itself; a philosophy, therefore, which disallows its subversion or submergence, whether by force of law or by any other coercive force. I was convinced that human beings do better and are happier when they have the largest possible margin of existence to regulate and dispose of as they please; and hence I believed that society should so manage itself as to leave the individual a maximum of free choice and action, even at a considerable risk of results which from the short-time point of view would be pronounced dangerous.

 * I was mildly astonished to hear the other day that a person very much in the public eye, and one who would seem likely to know something of what I have been up to during all these years, had described me as "one of the most intelligent conservatives in the country." It was a kind and complimentary thing to say, and I was pleased to hear it, but it struck me nevertheless as a rather vivid commentary on the value and the fate of labels. Twenty, or ten, or even three years ago, no one in his right mind would have dreamed of tagging me with that designation. Why then, at this particular juncture, should it occur to a presumably well-informed person to call me a conservative, when my whole philosophy of life is openly and notoriously the same that it has been for twenty-five years? ... It seems that the reason for so amiably labeling me a conservative in this instance was that I am indisposed to the present Administration. This also appears to be one reason why Mr. Sokolsky labels himself a conservative, as he did in the very able and cogent paper which he published in the August issue of the Atlantic. But really, in my case this is no reason at all, for my objections to the Administration's behavior rest no more logically on the grounds of either conservatism or radicalism than on those of atheism or homoeopathy.

 * Lucius Cary, Viscount Falkland, managed to make himself a most conspicuous example of every virtue and every grace of mind and manner; and this was the more remarkable because in the whole period through which he lived — the period leading up to the Civil War — the public affairs of England were an open playground for envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness. … He could not see that there was any inconsistency in his attitude. He then went on to lay down a great general principle in the ever — memorable formula, "Mr. Speaker, when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change." Here we get on track of what conservatism is. We must carefully observe the strength of Falkland's language. He does not say that when it is not necessary to change, it is expedient or advisable not to change; he says it is necessary not to change. Very well, then, the differentiation of conservatism rests on the estimate of necessity in any given case. Thus conservatism is purely an ad hoc affair; its findings vary with conditions, and are good for this day and train only. Conservatism is not a body of opinion, it has no set platform or creed, and hence, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a hundred-per-cent conservative group or party … Nor is conservatism an attitude of sentiment. Dickens's fine old unintelligent characters who "kept up the barrier, sir, against modern innovations" were not conservatives. They were sentimental obstructionists, probably also obscurantists, but not conservatives. Nor yet is conservatism the antithesis of radicalism; the antithesis of radical is superficial. Falkland was a great radical; he was never for a moment caught by the superficial aspect of things. A person may be as radical as you please, and still may make an extremely conservative estimate of the force of necessity exhibited by a given set of conditions. A radical, for example, may think we should get on a great deal better if we had an entirely different system of government, and yet, at this time and under conditions now existing, he may take a strongly conservative view of the necessity for pitching out our system, neck and crop, and replacing it with another. He may think our fiscal system is iniquitous in theory and monstrous in practice, and be ever so sure he could propose a better one, but if on consideration of all the circumstances he finds that it is not necessary to change that system, he is capable of maintaining stoutly that it is necessary not to change it. The conservative is a person who considers very closely every chance, even the longest, of "throwing out the baby with the bath-water," as the German proverb puts it, and who determines his conduct accordingly. And so we see that the term conservative has little value as a label; in fact, one might say that its label-value varies inversely with one's right to wear it. ... It covers so much that looks like mere capriciousness and inconsistency that one gets little positive good out of wearing it; and because of its elasticity it is so easily weaseled into an impostor-term or a term of reproach, or again into one of derision, as implying complete stagnation of mind, that it is likely to do one more harm than it is worth.

Isaiah's Job (1936)

 * The Atlantic Monthly (June 1936)

 * This story is much worth recalling just now when so many wise men and soothsayers appear to be burdened with a message to the masses. … I can not remember a time when so many energumens were so variously proclaiming the Word to the multitude and telling them what they must do to be saved. This being so, it occurred to me, as I say, that the story of Isaiah might have something in it to steady and compose the human spirit until this tyranny of windiness is overpast. I shall paraphrase the story in our common speech, since it has to be pieced out from various sources; and inasmuch as respectable scholars have thought fit to put out a whole new version of the Bible in the American vernacular, I shall take shelter behind them, if need be, against the charge of dealing irreverently with the Sacred Scriptures.
 * I

 * In the year of Uzziah's death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. "Tell them what a worthless lot they are." He said, "Tell them what is wrong, and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don't mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you," He added, "that it won't do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life."
 * I

 * Why, if all that were so — if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start — was there any sense in starting it? "Ah," the Lord said, "you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it."
 * I

 * The mass-man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.
 * II

 * The picture which Isaiah presents of the Judean masses is most unfavorable. In his view, the mass-man — be he high or be he lowly, rich or poor, prince or pauper — gets off very badly. He appears as not only weak-minded and weak-willed, but as by consequence knavish, arrogant, grasping, dissipated, unprincipled, unscrupulous. The mass-woman also gets off badly, as sharing all the mass-man’s untoward qualities, and contributing a few of her own in the way of vanity and laziness, extravagance and foible.
 * II

 * If the modern spirit, whatever that may be, is disinclined towards taking the Lord’s word at its face value (as I hear is the case), we may observe that Isaiah’s testimony to the character of the masses has strong collateral support from respectable Gentile authority. Plato lived into the administration of Eubulus, when Athens was at the peak of its jazz-and-paper era, and he speaks of the Athenian masses with all Isaiah’s fervency, even comparing them to a herd of ravenous wild beasts.
 * II

 * If, say, you are a preacher, you wish to attract as large a congregation as you can, which means an appeal to the masses; and this, in turn, means adapting the terms of your message to the order of intellect and character that the masses exhibit. If you are an educator, say with a college on your hands, you wish to get as many students as possible, and you whittle down your requirements accordingly. If a writer, you aim at getting many readers; if a publisher, many purchasers; if a philosopher, many disciples; if a reformer, many converts; if a musician, many auditors; and so on. But as we see on all sides, in the realization of these several desires, the prophetic message is so heavily adulterated with trivialities, in every instance, that its effect on the masses is merely to harden them in their sins. Meanwhile, the Remnant, aware of this adulteration and of the desires that prompt it, turn their backs on the prophet and will have nothing to do with him or his message. Isaiah, on the other hand, worked under no such disabilities. He preached to the masses only in the sense that he preached publicly. Anyone who liked might listen; anyone who liked might pass by. He knew that the Remnant would listen; and knowing also that nothing was to be expected of the masses under any circumstances, he made no specific appeal to them, did not accommodate his message to their measure in any way, and did not care two straws whether they heeded it or not. As a modern publisher might put it, he was not worrying about circulation or about advertising. Hence, with all such obsessions quite out of the way, he was in a position to do his level best, without fear or favour, and answerable only to his august Boss.
 * III

 * If a prophet were not too particular about making money out of his mission or getting a dubious sort of notoriety out of it, the foregoing considerations would lead one to say that serving the Remnant looks like a good job. An assignment that you can really put your back into, and do your best without thinking about results, is a real job; whereas serving the masses is at best only half a job, considering the inexorable conditions that the masses impose upon their servants. They ask you to give them what they want, they insist upon it, and will take nothing else; and following their whims, their irrational changes of fancy, their hot and cold fits, is a tedious business, to say nothing of the fact that what they want at any time makes very little call on one’s resources of prophesy. The Remnant, on the other hand, want only the best you have, whatever that may be. Give them that, and they are satisfied; you have nothing more to worry about.
 * III

 * If you can tough the fancy of the masses, and have the sagacity to keep always one jump ahead of their vagaries and vacillations, you can get good returns in money from serving the masses, and good returns also in a mouth-to-ear type of notoriety … Taking care of the Remnant, on the contrary, holds little promise of any such rewards. A prophet of the Remnant will not grow purse-proud on the financial returns from his work, nor is it likely that he will get any great renown out of it. Isaiah’s case was exceptional to this second rule, and there are others, but not many.
 * III

 * In any given society the Remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity. You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. You can be sure of those — dead sure, as our phrase is — but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else. You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you. Except for these two certainties, working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness; and this, I should say, is just the condition calculated most effectively to pique the interest of any prophet who is properly gifted with the imagination, insight and intellectual curiosity necessary to a successful pursuit of his trade.
 * IV

 * One of the most suggestive episodes recounted in the Bible is that of a prophet's attempt — the only attempt of the kind on the record, I believe — to count up the Remnant. Elijah had fled from persecution into the desert, where the Lord presently overhauled him and asked what he was doing so far away from his job. He said that he was running away, not because he was a coward, but because all the Remnant had been killed off except himself. He had got away only by the skin of his teeth, and, he being now all the Remnant there was, if he were killed the True Faith would go flat. The Lord replied that he need not worry about that, for even without him the True Faith could probably manage to squeeze along somehow if it had to; "and as for your figures on the Remnant," He said, "I don't mind telling you that there are seven thousand of them back there in Israel whom it seems you have not heard of, but you may take My word for it that there they are."
 * IV

Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943)

 * Full text available online

 * Personal publicity of every kind is utterly distasteful to me, and I have made greater efforts to escape it than most people make to get it.
 * Preface

 * It is certainly true that whatever a man may do or say, the most significant thing about him is what he thinks; and significant also is how he came to think it, why he continued to think it, or, if he did not continue, what the influences were which caused him to change his mind.
 * Preface

 * Our preceptors were gentlemen as well as scholars. There was not a grain of sentimentalism in the institution; on the other hand, the place was permeated by a profound sense of justice. … An equalitarian and democratic regime must by consequence assume, tacitly or avowedly, that everybody is educable. The theory of our regime was directly contrary to this. Our preceptors did not see that doctrines of equality and democracy had any footing in the premises. They did not pretend to believe that everyone is educable, for they knew, on the contrary, that very few are educable, very few indeed. They saw this as a fact of nature, like the fact that few are six feet tall. … They accepted the fact that there are practicable ranges of intellectual and spiritual experience which nature has opened to some and closed to others.
 * p. 34

 * Reading implies a use of the reflective faculty, and very few have that faculty developed much beyond the anthropoid stage, let alone possessing it at a stage of development which makes reading practicable. As I said, the fact that few literate persons can read is easily determinable by experiment. What first put me on track of it was a remark by one of my old professors. He said that there were people so incompetent, so given to reading with their eyes and their emotions instead of with their brains, that they would accuse the Psalmist of atheism because he had written, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The remark stuck by me, and I remember wondering at the time whether the trouble might be that such people hardly had the brains to read with. It seemed possible.
 * p. 39

 * Above all things the mass-mind is most bitterly resentful of superiority. It will not tolerate the thought of an elite; and under a political system of universal suffrage, the mass-mind is enabled to make its antipathies prevail.
 * p. 88

 * I could see how "democracy" might do very well in a society of saints and sages led by an Alfred or an Antoninus Pius. Short of that, I was unable to see how it could come to anything but an ochlocracy of mass-men led by a sagacious knave. The collective capacity for bringing forth any other outcome seemed simply not there. To my ideas the incident of Aristides and the Athenian mass-man was perfectly exhibitory of "democracy" in practice. Socrates could not have got votes enough out of the Athenian mass-men to be worth counting, but Eubulus easily could, and did, wangle enough to keep himself in office as long as the corrupt fabric of the Athenian State held together. As against Jesus, the historic choice of the mass-man goes regularly to some Barabbas.
 * p. 131

 * I had before me the product of two mutually exclusive philosophies. Economism would insist that having made the perfect pencil, Thoreau should make more pencils and sell them for money with which to buy more material to make still more pencils to sell for money to buy still more material, and so on, because the making and selling of pencils is the whole content of life. Thoreau did not believe it is the whole content of life. It was clear that economism's philosophy was the only one which my companion was capable of accepting. Detach him from his particular specialised practice of it, and existence would have no further meaning for him; and in this he was representative of the great bulk of society in this present age.
 * p. 173

 * Culture is knowing the best that has been thought and said in the world; in other words, culture means reading, not idle and casual reading, but reading that is controlled and directed by a definite purpose. Reading, so understood, is difficult, and contrary to an almost universal belief, those who can do it are very few. I have already remarked the fact that there is no more groundless assumption than that literacy carries with it the ability to read. At the age of seventy-nine Goethe said that those who make this assumption "do not know what time and trouble it costs to learn to read. I have been working at it for eighteen years, and I can't say yet that I am completely successful."
 * p. 194

 * To know oneself as well as one can; to avoid self-deception and foster no illusions; to learn what one can about the plain natural truth of things, and make one's valuations accordingly; to waste no time in speculating upon vain subtleties, upon "things which are not and work not"; — this perhaps is hardly the aim of an academic philosophy, but it is what a practical philosophy keeps steadily in view. Because the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius so consistently does keep just this in view, it still remains, and for those who can take it will probably always remain, the best of handbooks to the art of living.
 * p. 304-305

 * By consequence I hold that no one ever did, or can do, anything for "society."… Comte invented the term altruism as an antonym for egoism, and it found its way at once into everyone's mouth, although it is utterly devoid of meaning, since it points to nothing that ever existed in mankind; This hybrid or rather this degenerate form of hedonism served powerfully to invest collectivism's principles with a specious moral sanction, and collectivists naturally made the most of it.
 * p. 305

 * According to my observations, mankind are among the most easily tamable and domesticable of all creatures in the animal world. They are readily reducible to submission, so readily conditionable (to coin a word) as to exhibit an almost incredibly enduring patience under restraint and oppression of the most flagrant character. So far are they from displaying any overweening love of freedom that they show a singular contentment with a condition of servitorship, often showing a curious canine pride in it, and again often simply unaware that they are existing in that condition.
 * p. 314

 * Considering mankind's indifference to freedom, their easy gullibility and their facile response to conditioning, one might very plausibly argue that collectivism is the political mode best suited to their disposition and their capacities. Under its regime, the citizen, like the soldier, is relieved of the burden of initiative and is divested of all responsibility, save for doing as he is told.
 * p. 319

Quotes about Nock

 * I had read some of Nock's essays, in Harper's or the Atlantic Monthly, while still in school, but it was his Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, which I read soon after it came out in 1944, that made me a confirmed Nockian and was probably one of the influences that led to my publishing books. The first of our two works by him was a journal from the years 1934 and 1935, the only unpublished manuscript, except some letters, that Nock did not destroy before his death in 1945. … Nock was a shrewd, keen observer, well aware of what was going on. Roosevelt and Hitler, for neither of whom Nock had any use whatever, had come into power the year before the journal begins; Mussolini was preparing for his Ethiopian adventure; and the politicians were helplessly wrestling with economic and social problems completely beyond their power of understanding, with armaments and war in the background as the simple and inevitable solution. Nock comments on it all with his usual directness and realism, and always in his clear classic English...
 * Henry Regnery, Memoirs of a Dissident Publisher (1985), p. 52

 * So little was there of the propagandist in him that he never seemed much interested in the fate of his work. He once wrote me a remarkable letter of advice in which he expressed succinctly his idea of a writer's duty to himself: "Write what you want to write, as well as you can, and then forget it." … But he wrote that little "as well as he could," and that was well indeed; so well that while there are still a few who love freedom, wisdom, excellence of thought and style, those few will be his readers.  And they are the only readers he would want.
 * Suzanne La Follette, in the Introduction to Nock's Snoring As A Fine Art And Twelve Other Essays. (1958)

title: Albert Jay Nock


text:
Talk:Final Fantasy

Can anyone understand why Final Fantasy II says "See Final Fantasy VI"? I did not rv. it because there might be a reason...anyone who is into it, please check. Thanks. MosheZadka 07:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I put a piece of information. Your copyedit will be welcome. --Aphaia 09:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Final Fantasy V advance
If we could get some quotes from this re-make of V it would be great as there character dialog is interesting enough. I will supple some hopefully. 74.119.210.239 12:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Those general quotes suck.

Dissidia
Could someone please make a new article for Dissidia:Final Fantasy? Just unlocked the Museum and in the Theatre you can listen to all the Battle-Quotes, Victory quotes and stuff. Wanna write them down, also the Story-Quotes, but don't know in which order the site should be created, and what to keep of the already written stuff. Just gimme a structure to work on, please! --TheDarkChaplain 19:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Final Fantasy


text:
User talk:GreedyCapitalist~enwikiquote

--Aphaia 08:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called GreedyCapitalist. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name GreedyCapitalist~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:GreedyCapitalist~enwikiquote


text:
User talk:YannGolanski

--Aphaia 08:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:YannGolanski


text:
User talk:212.248.13.34

Welcome to Wikiquote, the free compendium of quotations! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikiquote, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires you to provide no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion

Click here to create an account.--Aphaia 09:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back to Wikiquote. Thank you for your input to Russian proverbs. By the way I wonder why you thought your last edit was the best. Please see this diff. I think the revision second latest would be better than the current one. So I would like to revert it. Your opinion on Talk:Russian proverbs will be very helpful and appreciated. --Aphaia 09:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Please wait editing once. Would you like to give the reason of your edit? If you won't I should consider to disturb you by technical method. But I hope we could talk calmly. --Aphaia 09:25, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Please explain the intention of your edit, your action seems strongly alike vandalism. If you don't stop, I'll put a blocking on you at the next time. --Aphaia 09:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You are blocked from Wikiquote editing. If you come back on a good faith and edit respecting our policies, you will be welcome to Wikiquote project. Thank you. --Aphaia 09:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:212.248.13.34


text:
User talk:158.123.178.2

Thanks for experimenting with Wikiquote. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will normally be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our compendium of quotations. Thanks.

--Aphaia 12:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:158.123.178.2


text:
User talk:Suruena

, by the way, may I ask you, are you Suruena on meta & es? --Aphaia 13:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm the same suruena of the other projects, although I have been very busy and I don't participate in meta from a long time. --surueña 10:23, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

title: User talk:Suruena


text:
User talk:Nichalp

--Aphaia 13:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nichalp


text:
Graeme Leung

Graham Everett Leung is a Fijian lawyer and former president of the Fiji Law Society.

Quotes

 * Reconciliation and forgiveness are matters of the heart. They cannot be forced on the people.
 * 24 May 2005 letter to Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase

 * It's the way we are - our people show their respect to their leaders by keeping quiet. It is considered rude to speak your mind.
 * 24 May 2005 letter to Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase

 * If we continue to pardon or excuse the wrongdoers who commit acts of criminality in unsettling an elected government, we don't have any guarantee, do we, that this kind of exercise won't be repeated in the future.
 * 14 June 2005 letter to Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase

 * The creation of a legal eligibility allowing the grant of an amnesty for treason is abhorrent and unacceptable. The Bill was supposed to be a search for the truth behind the tragedy of 2000, but the Bill never once mentions the word "truth".
 * 16 June 2005 parliamentary submission

 * These fears (held by indigenous Fijians) must not be ridiculed but understood and addressed. In the final analysis it will be counterproductive to impose democracy on people who have yet to fully understand how it will sit against everything they believe in.
 * Address to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Nadi, 8 September 2005

 * Democracy, the rule of law and human rights march hand in hand. These concepts are not well understood by a good portion of the population.
 * Address to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Nadi, 8 September 2005

 * It (democracy) is far more than merely participating in free and fair elections for a new government. It is about playing by a set of rules, respecting those rules and accepting the result even when it may not be what one had hoped for.
 * Address to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Nadi, 8 September 2005

 * The evidence shows a growing albeit reluctant acceptance of the rule of law. But time, patience and a genuine commitment not just of the country's leaders towards creating an environment that will allow democracy, human rights and the rule of law to flourish, will be required.
 * Address to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Nadi, 8 September 2005

title: Graeme Leung


text:
Wikiquote talk:Browse

Before editing the page, I just wanted to see if there would be agreement for starting a neoaphorisms and/or protoaphorisms page to record aphorisms which have recently entered into our vocabulary and to propose new aphorisms (such as at Protologism for single words).

Also, I think we could use an "Other Categorization" section (perhaps under which the above could fit). Brettz9 13:59, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Occupation -> People
Wait, why is it called Occupation? When everywere els it's called People? --Steinninn 19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Because we have too move here and follows another step Tolly Gilbert (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Like me tolly i have many movements from here and there So people we have movements Tolly Gilbert (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

ENGLISH
Many thing in my mind. That i want tell people who like online That tell others people who not love online That am Business man hiya Tolly Gilbert (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Batswadi Ep
The Pain of loosing a parents.It's been 2years now without Parants.And now um starting to sing because of in side me I have a pain and deep on. In 2019 I was starting to sing till now (2023) and um proud because I am now becoming a Rapper. Um still at school But phishing my dream. Bophelo ll (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

short qoutes
the best view comes after the hardest climb Ibyang38 (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Wikiquote talk:Browse


text:
Template:WQisnot1

Thank you for your effort to contribute to our project, but Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia: it is a compendium of quotations. Articles without quotations, such as essays or biographies, will be deleted. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our compendium of quotations. Thanks.

title: Template:WQisnot1


text:
User:Brettz9

Hello all,

 * Wikipedia:User:Brettz9
 * Wiktionary:User:Brettz9

title: User:Brettz9


text:
User talk:209.19.235.130

Welcome to Wikiquote, the free compendium of quotations! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikiquote, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires you to provide no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:
 * The use of a username of your choice
 * The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
 * Your own user page
 * Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
 * The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
 * The ability to rename pages
 * The ability to upload images
 * The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
 * The eligibility to become an administrator
 * The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion

Click here to create an account.

And another useful information - Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia, but a compendium of quotations, hence article without quotation like a mere biography will be deleted. Please input your favorite quotes to your submitted article. Thank you for your consideration. --Aphaia 14:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:209.19.235.130


text:
User talk:Sawb11152

Thanks for experimenting with Wikiquote. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will normally be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our compendium of quotations. Thanks.

--Aphaia 14:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sawb11152


text:
User talk:Brettz9

Hi,, welcome back to Wikiquote ;-) Here are some useful links:
 * Browse To browse the site.
 * Reference desk To ask some questions related to quotes.
 * Village pump To discuss with other editors.
 * Community Portal Other useful links.

Shortly be bold and enjoy! I am grateful of you for your suggestion on categories. But I couldn't understand what you would like to. Would you like us to know your ideas much closer? --Aphaia 14:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Brettz9


text:
User talk:SlawekP

By the way our site is an English project. All language speakers are welcome, but we communiciate mainly in English and no one expect to speak Polish here - and you would like to communicate with other editors too? If you put an message on your user talk, we don't mind you write in Polish, but you strongly encourage editors to speak in English for communication and therefore you will be very appreciated, if you add English translation or replace the current content with English version, unless its content violate our policies. (like "Wikiquote is not a weblog", "Wikiquote doesn't allow commercial advertisement" and so on... ) --Aphaia 14:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry to say your user page is listed on WQ:VFD as deletion candidate. Unless you remove its current content or modify it totally, it would be deleted within two weeks. Thank you for your understanding of our policy. See also What Wikiquote is not. --Aphaia 15:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:SlawekP


text:
Adi Da

Adi Da Samraj (3 November 1939 – 27 November 2008), born Franklin Albert Jones in Jamaica, Queens, New York City, was a contemporary, often controversial guru, spiritual writer, and artist, and the founder of the new religious movement currently known as Adidam.

Quotes

 * I do not Call My devotees to become absorbed into a "cultic" gang of exoteric and ego-centric religionists. I certainly Call all My devotees to always create and maintain cooperative sacred culture (and to enter into to fully cooperative collective and personal relationship) with one another—but not to do so in an egoic, separative, world-excluding, xenophobic, and intolerant manner. Rather, My devotees are Called, by Me, to transcend egoity—through right and true devotional (and, in due course, Spiritual) relationship to Me, and mutually tolerant and peaceful cooperation with one another, and all-tolerating (cooperative and compassionate and all-loving and all-including) relationship with all of mankind (and with even all beings)..

 * I do not tolerate the so-called "cultic" (or ego-made, and ego-reinforcing) approach to Me. I do not tolerate the seeking ego's "cult" of the "man in the middle". I am not a self-deluded ego-man—making much of himself, and looking to include everyone-and-everything around himself for the sake of social and political power. To be the "man in the middle" is to be in a Man-made trap, an absurd mummery of "cultic" devices that enshrines and perpetuates the ego-"I" in one and all. Therefore, I do not make or tolerate the religion-making "cult" of ego-Man. I do not tolerate the inevitable abuses of religion, of Spirituality, of Truth Itself, and of My own Person (even in bodily human Form) that are made (in endless blows and mockeries) by ego-based mankind when the Great Esoteric Truth of devotion to the Adept-Realizer is not rightly understood and rightly practiced..

 * The Great Means for the Teaching, and the Blessing, and the Awakening, and the Divine Liberating of mankind (and of even all beings) Is the Adept-Realizer. The true Adept-Realizer (of any degree or kind) is One Who (by Virtue of True Divine Realization) Is Able to (and, indeed, cannot do otherwise than) Stand In and As the Divine (or Real and Inherent and One and Only) Position, and to Be (Thus and Thereby) the Divine Means (In Person) for the Divine Helping of one and all. This Great Means Is the Great Esoteric Principle of the collective historical Great Tradition of mankind. And Such Adept-Realizers Are (in their Exercise of the Great Esoteric Principle) the Great Revelation-Sources That Are at the Core and Origin of all the right and true religious and Spiritual traditions within the collective historical Great Tradition of mankind..

 * Therefore, no one should misunderstand Me. By Avatarically Revealing and Confessing My Divine Status to one and all and All, I am not indulging in self-appointment, or in illusions of grandiose Divinity. I am not claiming the "Status" of the "Creator-God" of exoteric (or public, and social, and idealistically pious) religion. Rather, by Standing Firm in the Divine Position (As I Am)—and (Thus and Thereby) Refusing to be approached as a mere man, or as a "cult"-figure, or as a "cult"-leader, or to be in any sense defined (and, thereby, trapped, and abused, or mocked) as the "man in the middle"—I Am Demonstrating the Most Perfect Fulfillment (and the Most Perfect Integrity, and the Most Perfect Fullness) of the Esoteric (and Most Perfectly Non-Dual) Realization of Reality..

 * The higher dimension of religion has also always been practiced by a relatively few uncommon individuals. Indeed, it was largely the response to the more conventional or superficial aspects of such extraordinary personalities that produced the great cultic movements of exoteric religion among the masses. But such cultic movements are created by and designed for the instruction and social improvement of ordinary people, not men and women of the more highly evolved or awakened type. Therefore, alongside the development of exoteric religions there have always been secret societies and esoteric groups founded on practice of higher personal, moral, and biologically evolutionary disciplines..

 * The Truth that is to be Realized may be summarized simply as the Realization that no matter what is arising, no matter how many others are present, there is only One Being. This is precisely different from the childish but common religious notion that even when you are alone there is always Someone Else present, Who will look out for you if you do the right thing. True freedom is not a matter of striking a deal with an All-Powerful Parental Deity; no such God exists. True freedom is in the Realization that there is only God and You are That One..

 * Remarkably enough, the reason you are so disturbed about the facts of life that might make you fearful, sorrowful, and angry is that whenever something arises that you might appropriately be angry, fearful, or sorrowful about, you do not feel it completely. You limit your feeling of even these reactions. And you certainly limit your feeling of the circumstance, or the condition, that is arising. You are always exhibiting the evidence of limited feeling, obstructed feeling. If feeling becomes limitless, if you do not contract, then feeling becomes Being Itself — no reaction, no contraction, Feeling without limit. That Feeling goes beyond fear, sorrow, anger, and conventional happiness and loving attitudes. What is It? It is Love-Bliss. It is the Self-Existing and Self-Radiant Force of Being, without the slightest obstruction. It is Divine Enlightenment.".

 * The Asana of Science — Science's anti-Spiritual, anti-religious, anti-psychic point of view, and its Victorian, archaic materialism, and its prejudices against other kinds of knowing — all of this is insidious, not merely nonsensical, because it has such a profoundly negative effect on human beings. Many scientists who adopt this dogmatic approach act as if they were super-intelligent people with their tweedy, pipe-smoking, complicated linguistic minds. This is the archetype of intelligence, is it not? This is the way you are supposed to be if you are intelligent. Well, this archetype does not necessarily represent intelligence. It is just a pose, or asana. Real intelligence must be fiercely capable of investigating every aspect of existence, including the very process of knowledge that is called "science"..

 * The exclusion of true or esoteric religion has been the business of the State since ancient times. At first this was done via the establishment of the popular idealism of exoteric religious institutions in league with the State. But in modern times the same process is done by the strategic exclusion of conventional religious cultism, mystical idealism, and higher evolutionary Wisdom from the mechanisms of popular culture..

 * In my use of the camera, I work to make images that go beyond, and even undermine, the conventions of "point of view." Such images transcend the limitation that would seem to be inherent in the photographic mechanism (or "point-of-view machine"). They allow the viewer to see and feel the "room"—or the world, or reality—as it is, beyond the ego’s self-reference. And such images thereby become a non-verbal means of "picturing" the essential human process of ego-transcendence—going beyond the fixed "point of view" of the ego, or the core presumption of separateness

 * There is no Enlightenment, no evolutionary entrance into the truly Spiritual Condition of human existence, without ego-death, or transcendence of the mind. There must be the literal death of the separate and separative consciousness. In this moment, you are holding on to your sense of separate consciousness as if it were something tangible and material. You possess yourself through a great contraction of body and psyche. By virtue of this gesture, you have become rigid, mediocre, deluded, relatively loveless, self-possessed, and isolated. To be without an inner consciousness is, for you, unthinkable. To be incapable of feeling yourself as a separate consciousness is, for you, a terrifying prospect. Nevertheless, that is precisely the realization with which you must become completely comfortable. ('Scientific Proof of the Existence of God Will Soon Be Announced by the White House!, p. 171).

 * So the Free Man is Free. Absolutely Free. Not just a little bit free. Not cut off from all of this. That's not the nature of His Freedom—humorlessness relative to the world still, non-pleasure still. No, in His Freedom He becomes capable of humor in life, capable of pleasure, or enjoyment, in the forms that are arising. That is the fullness of God-Realization. All of the humorless, pleasureless forms of experience that are often associated with God-Realization in the traditions are not God-Realization in Truth. (Sex, Laughter, and Real-God-Realization 1975).

 * Evelyn slapped Raymond on the back with a laugh. 'You must be starved old friend. Come into my apartments, and we'll suffer through a deep breakfast of pure sunlight. (The Mummery Book).

The Knee of Listening

 * Death is utterly acceptable to consciousness and life. There has been endless time of numberless deaths, but neither consciousness nor life has ceased to arise. The felt quality and cycle to death has not modified the fragility of flowers, even the flowers within the human body. Therefore, one's understanding of consciousness and life must be turned to that utter, inclusive quality, that clarity and wisdom, that power and untouchable gracefulness this evidence suggests. We must cease to live in our superficial and divided way, seeking and demanding only consciousness and life in the present form we grasp, avoiding and resisting what appears to be the end of consciousness and life in death.

 * The Heart is that understanding, that true consciousness, that true life that is under the extreme conditions of life and death. Therefore, it is said, that One that is, is neither born nor come to death, not alive as the limitation of form, not rendered in what appears, and yet it is the living One, than which there is no other, appearing as all of this, but eternally the same.

 * There is only the constant knowledge and enjoyment of the Heart, moment to moment, through the instant of all conditions of appearance and disappearance. Of this I am perfectly certain. I am That.
 * Page 23, 2004 Standard Edition.

 * The Man of "Radical" Understanding is not "entranced". He is not "elsewhere". He is not having an experience. He is not passionless and inoffensive. He is awake. He is present. He knows no obstruction in the form of mind, identity, differentiation and desire. He uses mind, identity, differentiation and desire. He is passionate. His quality is an offense to those who are entranced, elsewhere, contained in the mechanics of experience, asleep, living as various forms of identity, separation and dependence. He is acceptable only to those who understand."
 * Page 421, 2004 Standard Edition.

 * Heartless one, Narcissuss, friend, loved one. He weeps for you to understand. After all of this why have you not understood? The only thing you have not done is understanding. You have seen everything, but you do not understand. Therefore, the man of understanding leaps for joy that you have already understood. He looks at the world and sees that every one and every thing has always understood. He sees that there is only understanding. Thus, the man of understanding is constantly happy with you. He is overwhelmed with happiness. He says to you: See how there is only this world of perfect enjoyment, where every one is happy, and every thing is blissful. His heart is always tearful with the endless happiness of the world.

 * He has grasped it, but no one is interested. He is of interest to no one. He is fascinating. He is unnoticed. Since no one understands, how could they notice him? Because there is only understanding, he is beloved, and no one comes to see him. Because there is only truth, he is likely to become famous. Since there is only joy, he will not be remembered. Because you have already understood, you find it necessary to touch his hand. Since you love so much and are not understood, you find it possible to touch his ears. He smiles at you. You notice a sudden spiritual "Brightness". Aham Da Asmi. I Am He. Everything has already died. This is the other world.
 * Page 423, 2004 Standard Edition.

Aham Da Asmi

 * I Love The Happiness Of My Devotee. That Happiness Is (Itself) The Very (And Most Prior) Consciousness Of every conditionally Manifested being. And Happiness (Itself) Is The Conscious Light Of the world. I Am Happiness (or Love-Bliss) Itself.

 * Breathe and Feel My Avatarically Self-Transmitted--and Whole-bodily-Tangible--Divine Spiritual Gift, In All Your parts.

 * Therefore, Outshine the world--but Do Not Merely Abandon the world. Outshine the world By Exercising The Heart--Which Is Love's Radiant Wound.

 * And, Even Now, You (Always Already) Inhere In Me--The "Who" and "What" That Is Only One --Beyond The Seeming "Two" Of body-mind and world. I Am You-- As You Are (Always Already, and Non-Separately). Even When My Avatarically-Born Human Physical Body Has Died In This World, I Am Present and every where Alive--Because I Am Always Already Conscious As The Only One Who Always Already Is . I Am Joy!--and The Only Reason For It! I Am Love!--and The Only Person Of It! The Love Of Me Is The Heart-Secret I Have Come To Avatarically Reveal To The Heart Of everyone one Of Man (and To The Heart Of everyone one of all, and To The Heart Of The All Of all). Love Must Be Always Done (and, Thereby, Proved )--or Else The "Bright" Heart Of Love Is Darkened By Its Own Un-Love. And The Would-Be-"Brightest" Heart Of Love's Beloved Is Made Un-"Bright" (and Dark As Eternal Night) By All The Waiting-Time Of Un-Love's Day. Therefore, I Am here! I Am (Now, Forever) Avatarically Descended here--To Be The Constant Lover and The True Loved-One Of All and all (and every one of all).

 * Now (and Forever Hereafter), My Every Devotee Is The God That I Am here To Find.

Ruchira Avatara Gita
"Guru cultism". . . is a tendency that has always been present in the religious and Spiritual traditions of mankind. Anciently, and in the present time, both true Spiritual Masters and ordinary Wisdom-Teachers have been "cultified", and (thereby) made the merely fascinating Object of a self-contained popular movement that worships the Spiritual Master as a Parent-like Savior, while embracing very little of the significant Wisdom-Teaching of the Spiritual Master. The error of conventional cultism is precisely this childish, and (otherwise) adolescent, and (altogether) ego-based orientation to fascination with Spiritual Masters, Wisdom-Teachers, "God"-Ideas, myths, sacred lore, inherited beliefs, traditional propaganda, and psycho-physical (or merely body-mind-based) mysticism. And the cultic tendency in religion and Spirituality is the essence of what is wrong with conventional religion and Spirituality.

The "problem" is not that there Is no Real God, or that there are no true Wisdom-Teachings, or that there are no true Spiritual Masters, or that there should be no devotion to any true Spiritual Masters. The "problem" with conventional religion and Spirituality is the same as the "problem" of all ordinary life. The "problem" is the childish, and (otherwise) rather adolescent, egoism that is the basis of all forms of ordinary existence.

Yet un-Enlightened (or, otherwise, not yet Most Perfectly Enlightened) people are ego-possessed. Therefore, egoity is the "disease" that all the true Spiritual Masters of religion come here to cure. . ..

All cults, whether sacred or secular, thrive on indulgence in the psychology (and the emotional rituals) of hope, rather than on actual demonstration of counter-egoic and really ego-transcending action. Therefore, when all egos meet, they strive and compete for the ultimate fulfillment of searches and desires, rather than cooperate with Truth, Reality, or Real God, and in a culturally valued and rewarded mood of fearless tolerance and sane equanimity.

Clearly, this cultic tendency in religion and Spirituality, and the egoic (and, thus, cultic) tendency in life in general, must become the constant subject of fundamental human understanding—and all of mankind must constantly be put to "school", to unlearn the method of egocentrism, non-cooperation, intolerance, and dis-ease.

Da Love-Ananda Gita
The (Ultimate) Nature of the world (and how it is arising) is inherently (and tacitly) obvious, if you remain in a state of total psycho-physical oneness with whatever and all that presently arises.

To remain in a state of total psycho-physical oneness with whatever and all that presently arises, you must (necessarily, and always presently) Realize inherently Love-Blissful Unity with whatever and all that presently arises.

Inherently Love-Blissful Unity with whatever and all that presently arises is (Itself, or inherently) non-separation (or no-contraction) from whatever and all that presently arises. . ..

Separation (or total psycho-physical self-contraction) is the first (and foundation) gesture made by anyone who has a problem, or who is seeking, or who is making an effort to account for anything whatsoever. . ..

Therefore, it is necessary to (most fundamentally) understand this (or the total psycho-physical self-contraction itself), and (by the transcending of the total psycho-physical self-contraction itself) to Recover Awareness of the obvious (or inherent) Love-Bliss-Unity (and, Thus, to inherently account for everything, and also, Thereby, to solve, or inherently transcend, all problems).

This most fundamental self-understanding (and this Recovery) cannot (fruitfully) be sought—for all seeking is inherently associated with an already present (and total psycho-physical) act of self-contraction (and, thereby, of separation, separateness, and separativeness). . ..

Therefore, if most fundamental self-understanding is not already Realized in the present, it must (and can only) be Realized by Means of Divine Spiritual Grace (as an Avatarically Given Free Gift).

Aham Da Asmi. I Am Da (the Divine Giver), the Avatarically Self-Revealed Divine Person and the Avatarically Self-Given Divine Means of this Divine Spiritual Grace.

I Am Love-Ananda (the Divine Love-Bliss), the Avatarically Self-Transmitted Divine Spiritual Presence and the Avatarically Self-Revealed Divine Spiritual Way of this Free Gift.

Hridaya Rosary
You must be open Up,

Up to Me—

for I Am Infinitely Above

your head.

You must be open Up to Me,

like a waiting cup of love,

and allow the all

that is between Me and below,

to Melt down

in My Force,

Fire,

Love-Bliss-Presence,

"Bright".

By this Melting,

I am permitted to Descend

into your selfless body-mind.

The head and heart,

the body,

the whole breathing form

experience My Transmission

by Descent,

felt in every kind of manner

in the body-mind. ..

The love-to-Me gestures made to Me,

made by any of-Me devotee

in a here-below body

of life,

flash to Me

at a Great Height,

and,

with barely a Glance,

My Signal of Love-Bliss

Returns to the love-of-Love receiver.

And,

in each case,

I Am felt, experienced,

directly Overhead,

Above the body-mind

that tracks to Me

with every faculty.

This is how you Find Me,

if you love Me.

Let the heart Melt Into

My Heart,

Which Is

The By-Me-Spiritually-Revealed

"Bright" Rose Garden Of Love.

Let the head Melt Into

My Head,

Which Is

The By-Me-Spiritually-Revealed

"Bright" Rose

Of Infinitely Ascended

Bliss-Light.

Let the Total body Melt Into

My Divine Spiritual Body,

Which Is

The By-Me-Spiritually-Revealed

Garden Air,

The Fragrant

all-and-All-Surrounding,

and all-and-All-Pervading,

Space

Of Equanimity,

Of Pleasure,

Of Delight,

Of Beauty,

Of Joy,

Of Love-Bliss,

Of "Brightness"

Itself.

Let the breathing Melt Into

My Breathing,

Until I Breathe you

Into My

"Bright"

Eternal

Palace

and

Domain

Of

Perfect Happiness.

Eleutherios
Every conditional "thing" (or apparent "object") is only Energy (Itself).

Every conditional "self" (or apparently individual "subject") Is only Consciousness (Itself).

The Conscious conditional "self" (or apparently individual "subject") "knows" its every "object", but no "object" can "know" its "knower".

No "thing" can Contemplate Consciousness.

Therefore, Energy (Itself) cannot Contemplate (or ever "know") Consciousness (Itself).

Consciousness (Itself) only (Eternally) Contemplates Itself.

Consciousness (Itself) Is the Native and Inherently Perfect Intuition of Being (Itself).

Being (Itself) Is Self-Existing and Self-Radiant.

Consciousness (Itself) Is the Eternal Contemplation of the Self-Existing Self-Radiance (or Inherent Energy) of Being (Itself).

Therefore, Consciousness (Itself) Is the Contemplation (and Real Observation) of Energy (Itself).

Consciousness (Itself) Is Merely Being (or Existence Itself), Self-Radiant (As Primal Radiance, or Energy Itself), appearing to be modified as all forms and changes.

Consciousness (Itself) Is Inherently Free Radiance, or Bliss, or Happiness (Itself).

Consciousness (Itself)—Realized As Inherent Freedom and Self-Radiant and Self-Existing Bliss, or Happiness (Itself)—Is the Realization of Real God, or Truth, or Reality (Itself).

Therefore, Consciousness (Itself)—Self-Existing As Being (Itself), and Self-Radiant As Bliss-Energy (Itself), or Happiness (Itself)—Is the Divine Being, the Eternal Spirit, Forever Standing in the Midst of Life.

Consciousness (Itself) Is That Which always already Exists.

Consciousness (Itself) Is always already The Case—no matter what arises, and even if no "thing" arises.

Real God is Consciousness (Itself). Consciousness (Itself)—or the Perfectly Subjective Source (and the Non-separate Self-Condition) of the apparent conditional world and the apparent conditional self—Is the only Real God.

The Deep Non-separate Space of Consciousness (Itself) is the Matrix in Which the Origin and the Ultimate (and Self-Evidently Divine) Condition of conditional self, mind, body, world, the entire cosmos of conditional Nature, and the Universal Field of Energy is Inherently Obvious. When This (Deep Non-separate Space of Consciousness Itself) is "Known" (or fully Realized), the apparent conditional world and the apparent conditional self are fully "Known" (and, Thus, transcended) in the Realization of Truth Itself.

To "Know" (or to Realize) Consciousness Itself As Real God—and, Thus, to "Know" (or to Realize) Real God As Consciousness Itself (or As the Perfectly Subjective Source, and the Non-separate Self-Condition, of the conditional world and the conditional self)—is to transcend both the conditional world and the conditional self by Means of Truth, or the only "Knowledge" (or Realization) That can set you Free.

He-and-She is Me
The "Divine Shakti" Is Me. And I Am "She". And "She" Is Most Perfectly Conformed to Me.

I am not a Male Principle, "over against" a Female Principle.

I Am Only the One Indivisible Consciousness-Light Itself—Infinitely Self-Radiant and Self-Existing, neither Male nor Female. My own Self-Existing Self-Consciousness Is the One and Only and Non-Separate (or Indivisible) and Indestructible Being, Condition, and Reality That Is Always Already The Case.

"She" Is the Inherent Radiance of My Divine Being. My own Self-Radiance (or Divine "Brightness") Is the Condition in Which (and As a modification of Which) all conditionally apparent beings are arising. My own Self-Existing Self-Radiance Is the One and Only and Indivisible and Indestructible Light (or Energy, or Love-Bliss-Fullness) That Is Always Already The Case.

Therefore, there is no inherent (or ultimate) "difference" between "Siva" and "Shakti" (or Consciousness and Light).

There is no True Humour in life. In life there is conventional humour (or comedy) and there is tragedy. Life is either funny or tearful. Has anyone ever found True humour in life? True Humour is Free. (Garbage And The Goddess, pg. 214).

There is not anything to be attained. I mean not anything. Not anything!

There is not anything to be attained. Not one thing is to be attained. Not anything. There is not a single thing to be attained.

There is no conditional experience, no conditional vision, no conditional transformation of state that must be attained.

There. Have I said it?

Tat Sundaram! All of this is Sacred, All of this is Beautiful!

Crazy Da Must Sing (Inclined To His Weaker Side) [Poetry]
When I compare myself to some deliberate lives, I become afraid of my own softness, this round and thoughtless head, But this is my necessity, the circumstance of my birth (1st Edition 1982, p 12).

Those who despise me love me in secret, Those who love me openly have hidden doubts (1st Edition 1982, p 44).

...I am the wave of light within your mind that happens to be everything, my love.

The Method of the Siddhas
I have not come to satisfy my devotees. A satisfied devotee is still the one he or she was. I am only interested in the utter, "radical" dissolution of that entire limitation that appears as my devotee. (Page 230, 1995 New Standard Edition).

My eccentricity and unconventionality is a demonstration of the Living and Paradoxical Quality of the Divine, or Real Condition. (Page 360, 1995 New Standard Edition).

Quotes about Adi Da

 * Arranged alphabetically by author

 * I participated in and observed the evolution of one of the most exciting and sobering sacred experiments ever made....No matter what Adi Da tried, he couldn’t get people to realize the Divine Self on his terms, surrendering eternally to him as guru. He never really wanted us to duplicate his radical independence and creative originality in life.
 * Saniel Bonder, spiritual teacher and former student and biographer of Adi Da from ca. 1973-1993, as quoted in a press release for his book Waking Down (4 November 1998).

 * Adi Da's Teaching is neither utopian nor dissociative; it is simply a radically new human politics based on the Truth. Even as He transcends the common bonds of the human, Adi Da remains the Great Teacher of the pragmatic human situation. How incredibly blessed that He is here at the moment when we need Him most!

 * Dan Hamburg, student of Adi Da and former member of the U.S. Congress (online copy from unofficial Adidam advocacy site)
 * From the first day I encountered the writings of Adi Da (as Da Free John ) in the mid 80's I knew that I was reading a contemporary religious genius. Here was someone who had succeeded in making the nonduality spirituality cherished in the traditions of Asia relevant to the Western mind.

 * Jeffrey J. Kripal Ph.D (Professor of Religious Studies at Rice University, Houston, Texas), Foreword Knee of Listening 2004 Edition.

 * There are very few spiritual teachers in the 20th century who could be termed religious geniuses. Da Free John is one of them. Since the beginning of his formal ministry in 1972 in southern California, Da Free John has produced a body of work which is unparalleled amongst new religious thinkers for its radical insight, comparative depth, and force of expression. He has won wide critical acclaim for his writings, eliciting praises from sociologists, psychologists, and theologians.
 * David C. Lane from The Paradox of Da Free John.

 * It is obvious, from all sorts of subtle details, that he knows what IT's all about … a rare being.
 * Alan Watts, Author, The Way of Zen, 1973 (quoted on cover of The Knee Of Listening by Franklin Jones (Adi Da; online copy at official Adidam site).

 * ...my opinion is that we have, in the person of Da Free John, a Spiritual Master and religious genius of the ultimate degree. I assure you I do not mean that lightly. I am not tossing out high-powered phrases to 'hype' the works of Da Free John. I am simply offering to you my own considered opinion: Da Free John's teaching is, I believe, unsurpassed by that of any other spiritual Hero, of any period, of any place, of any time, of any persuasion.
 * Ken Wilber, 1980, Foreword to Scientific Proof of the Existence of God Will Soon Be Announced by the White House! by Da Free John (Adi Da; online copy from unofficial Adidam advocacy site).

 * In the meantime, I affirm all of the extremes of my statements about Da: he is one of the greatest spiritual Realizers of all time, in my opinion, and yet other aspects of his personality lag far behind those extraordinary heights. By all means look to him for utterly profound revelations, unequalled in many ways; yet step into his community at your own risk.
 * Ken Wilber, An Update On The Case of Adi Da, 1998

title: Adi Da


text:
Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon

Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon (21 August 1930 – 9 February 2002) was the second daughter of George VI of the United Kingdom and the younger sister of Queen Elizabeth II.

Quotes

 * Silly ass. The land would be much more valuable today.
 * On being told that George III had given the Crown lands to Parliament in 1761 in return for a fixed allowance. As quoted in Andrew Duncan, The Reality of Monarchy, p. 181

 * We had to put a stop to it. Every tart in London was getting in.
 * On the end in 1958 of the presentation of Debutantes at court, as cited by Liz Hoggard in "High Society: Whatever happened to the last of the debs?", The Independent on Sunday (24 September 2006)

 * It was while Princess Margaret was attending a high-society party in New York that the hostess asked her politely how the Queen was keeping. "Which one?" she is reported to have replied with her typically razor-sharp wit. "My sister, my mother or my husband?"
 * From Snowdon: The Biography

 * But we can go back further still, for the thing did not start with Princess Anne, either; before her there was Princess Margaret. She, too, was attacked for going on holiday, and indeed for putting on weight, but the main charges, which seem almost incredible today, concerned her choice of men friends - and after, not before, her divorce.
 * Bernard Levin, "Uneasy Lies the Head", The Times (23 January 1989).

title: Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon


text:
Josefa Iloilo

Josefa Iloilovatu Uluivuda, CF, MBE, MSD, KStJ (29 December 1920 – 6 February 2011) was the 2nd President of Fiji from 2000 until 2009, excluding a brief period from 5 December 2006 until 4 January 2007. He held the traditional title of Tui Vuda, the paramount chief of the Vuda district in Ba Province on Fiji's northwest coast.

Opening address to the National Day of Prayer in Suva, 15 May 2005 (excerpts)

 * "The National Day of Prayer has great significance for us as a nation. It enables us to recall and to teach the way in which our forebearers sought the wisdom of God faced with critical decisions.  It stands as a call to us to humbly come before God, seeking His guidance for our leaders and His grace upon us as a nation."

 * "I am … aware that there are those who feel that national unity could be hastened by pressing some buttons and out comes the results, (but) I want to remind you again that the attainment of genuine reconciliation and unity is a long term process."

 * "We are reminded of the principle of sowing this morning. That is whatever you sow you shall reap. If you sow the seeds of harmony, peace and goodwill you will reap the fruits thereof. If you sow the seeds of discord, hatred and injustice you cannot expect to reap good results. A healthy tree bears healthy fruits while the contrary is true of an unhealthy tree."

 * "God’s signs are not always the ones we look for, yet the private prayers of people, whether in our homes or in this place, are known, heard, and understood. There are prayers that help us last through the day, or endure the night. There are prayers of friends and strangers that give us strength for the journey. And there are prayers that yield our will to a will greater than our own."

 * "God created this world with a moral design. Grief, tragedy and hatred are only for a time. Goodness, remembrance, and love have no end."

 * "It is said that adversity introduces us to ourselves. This is true of a nation as well. We see our national character in our ability to rally together in times of difficulties, celebrations and in eloquent acts of sacrifice."

Opening address to the Great Council of Chiefs meeting, 27 July 2005 (excerpts)

 * "The nation looks to us as chiefs not only of the Fijians, but also for all of Fiji, to assist in unifying a divided society and promoting stability and goodwill."

 * "We are called here at a critical moment of our country."

 * "Perhaps, most importantly, we must continue to demonstrate that the system we represent is valid for an era of sweeping change. The title bequeathed to us through our indigenous heritage speaks of Fijian identity and culture and the integrity of the Vanua. The chiefs, the land and the people are one. That is the concept that holds the Fijian community together. And now, more than ever, we must see to it that it is preserved and adapted for the 21st Century."

 * "We should never forget Ratu Sukuna's warning about the dangers of chiefs simply becoming decorations. He said if that happened they were finished."

 * "Before we are in a position to advise our people on the right course we must also make sure that we have the knowledge and the awareness required to fulfill this duty properly. If we do not have this, we can not lead."

 * "When we are equipped with leadership skills that complement traditional rank, we are appropriately prepared to provide the inspiration, the motivation and guidance expected of us. The ethos of 'vakaturaga' (chiefly way) will then retain its true place in Fijian culture in this new millennium."

 * "So many things compete for our attention and action as we address what must be done to take the Fijian race forward."

Speech opening Parliament, 1 August 2005 (excerpts)

 * "I welcome the democratic process allowing all sections of society to express their views on the proposed legislation. The debate taking place is, in itself, helping the nation to understand that reconciliation is a difficult but necessary process." ''(on the government's controversial plans to set up a Commission empowered to compensate victims and pardon perpetrators of the political upheaval of 2000).

 * "As parliamentarians you must carefully examine your conscience on the deliberation of sensitive issues and not be swayed by divisive racial remarks which have been a common and unfortunate hallmark of debate in our Parliament."

 * "We hope and pray that by our efforts today and in the future the tenor of debate in this august house will greatly improve to carry the country forward in peace, harmony and reconciliation between all the races."

 * "We, the members of this country need to rectify this omission (of having failed to dedicate the Parliament to God previously) by dedicating the Parliament and those who serve through it to our Heavenly Father, who directs and guides us in our daily deliberations."

Fiji Day address, 10 October 2005 (excerpts)

 * "It is important that we continue to strengthen our economic and political progress. We can achieve this only if we can make an effort to face our past to allow relief and dignity for those who have experienced violations and to ensure that that pain is acknowledged. The root cause to our experience must also be effectively dealt with. This will involve all of us right across our society."

 * "It is not just about the need to identify victims of specific events and the experience but to also accept that this includes many others who consider themselves victims too. We urgently need the mechanisms to deal with the differences as they emerge because we want to progress together."

 * "We must pause and commit ourselves to these ideals of a democratic society. Today we must celebrate the remarkable freedoms that we now enjoy in our nation. This must be our commitment to those rights we value as well as the responsibilities that come with their expression."

 * "Disharmony and conflict are always to everyone’s loss and anguish. We stand again today to forge ahead toward a stronger nation."

 * "We urgently need the mechanisms to deal with differences as they emerge because we want to progress together. Today we must start to resolve to make a difference, individually, as families and communities and we cannot do this alone as we need others and more importantly the wisdom and divine intervention in our affairs."

title: Josefa Iloilo


text:
User:Ethica~enwikiquote

=About me= Name: S.R.I.

Age: 13

State: OH

Favorite bands: Slipknot, No Use for a Name, New Found Glory, Cannibal Corpse, Sum 41, Blink 182, Shadows fall, Greenday, Lamb of God, System of a down, Weezer, NOFX, The Atars etc...

Ethnicity: Japanese

That's all about me

This is my Japanese account: ja:&

title: User:Ethica~enwikiquote


text:
User talk:218.214.42.179

May I suggest you do your homework by yourself? Thanks, jni 07:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:218.214.42.179


text:
Hugo Weaving

Hugo Wallace Weaving (born 4 April 1960) is an Australian film and stage actor.

Quotes

 * One of the positive aspects from my point of view in terms of lifestyle doing film is that I can say "Well, I'm now going to have three months where I'm just going to hang out and be with the family".
 * Interview The Sun Herald (6 August 2000)

 * Yes, you like the money and the offers come in, but I don't think I know any actor who really, truly likes that glittery life. I think there's a lot of stress involved if you're up there.
 * Interview The Sun Herald (6 August 2000)

 * I very nearly died. Of course, everyone thought I was acting, even the person doing the strangling. But actually I was dying. Luckily someone noticed the froth coming out of my mouth and knew something was wrong. I wasn't that spooked by the incident. But when they told me I had been out for a while, I wanted to make sure I wouldn't have any long term damage because I didn't know how long the oxygen had been cut off to my brain. But I was fine apart from a couple of rope burns. That's what happens when you take art to extremes.
 * On losing consciousness in August 2000, during a performance of the Sydney Theatre Company's The White Devil by John Webster. The Sunday Telegraph (December 2002)

 * In a real fight, there ain't no time and you've got to use your wits. If someone were threatening the life of my child, then I'd be a good fighter. If somebody just wanted to steal my wallet, well, maybe I wouldn't worry about it so much.
 * Interview at about.com on The Matrix Reloaded.

title: Hugo Weaving


text:
User talk:203.51.26.147

Hello, thank you for yor participation. But I am sorry to asy, your post was listed for Votes for Deletion. Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia: it is a compendium of quotations. Hence, articles without quotation, such as mere biographies, will be deleted. Please add your favorite quotes to the article you submitted. Thank you for your consideration.--Aphaia 13:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:203.51.26.147


text:
User talk:203.51.240.146

Hello, welcome to Wikiquote. Wikiquote is not an encyclopedia: it is a compendium of quotations. Hence, articles without quotation, such as mere biographies, will be deleted. Please add your favorite quotes to the article you submitted. Thank you for your consideration. --Aphaia 15:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Cheris Kramarae
I have added a "" template to the article Cheris Kramarae, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ole.Holm 11:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:203.51.240.146