“But what worries me is not your shooting me, because after all, for people like us it s a natural death. He laid his glasses on the bed and took off his watch and chain. What worries me, he went on, is that out of so much hatred for the military, out of fighting them so much and thinking about them so much, you ve ended up as bad as they are. And no ideal in life is worth that much baseness.”
“If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated. The Party could not be overthrown from within. Its enemies, if it had any enemies, had no way of coming together or even of identifying one another. Even if the legendary Brotherhood existed, as just possibly it might, it was inconceivable that its members could ever assemble in larger numbers than twos and threes. Rebellion meant a look in the eyes, an inflection of the voice; at the most, an occasional whispered word. But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They need only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it.”
“He was Antinous, wild. You would have said, seeing the thoughtful reflection of his eye, that he had already, in some preceding existence, been through the revolutionary apocalypse. He knew its tradition like an eyewitness. He knew every little detail of that great thing. A pontifical and warrior nature, strange in a youth. He was officiating and militant; from the immediate point of view, a soldier of democracy; above the movement of the time, a priest of the ideal.”
“Revolution doesn t have to do with smashing something; it has to do with bringing something forth. If you spend all your time thinking about that which you are attacking, then you are negatively bound to it. You have to find the zeal in yourself and bring that out.”
“ﻗﺎﻟﺖ ﻟﻲ ﺑﻌﺘﺐ ﻭ ﻟﻮﻡ : ﻫﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺻﺎﺭﺕ ﺩﻣﺸﻖ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ… ﻓﻬﻞ ﺳﺘﻜﺘﺐ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺩﻣﺸﻖ ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺘﺒﺖ ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ؟ ﺳﻴﺪﺗﻲ. ﻟﻴﻠﺔ ﺳﻘﻮﻁ ﺍﻟﻨﻈام ﺳﺘﻜﻮﻥ ﻓﺠﺮ ﺩﻣﺸﻖ. .ﻭﻟﻴﺲ ﺳﻘﻮﻃﻬﺎ.ﻻﻥ ﻃﺎﻏﻴﺘﻬﺎ ﺳﻴﺴﻘﻂ ﺑﺎﻳﺪﻱ ﺃﺑﻨﺎﺋﻬﺎ.. ﻭﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﺭﻗﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺴﻘﻮﻁ ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻌﻮﺩ. ﻳﺆﺳﻔﻨﻲ ﻃﺒﻌﺎ ﺃﻧﻲ ﻟﻦ ﺃﻧﺎﻝ ﺷﺮﻑ ﺗﺴﻄﻴﺮ ﺫﻟﻚ.ﻓﺬﻟﻚ ﺷﺮﻑ ﺣﺼﺮﻱ ﺑﺄﺑﻨﺎﺋﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻋﺎﺻﺮﻭﺍ ﺍﻟﺤﺪﺙ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺤﻤﺔ ﻭﺍﻋﺘﺼﺮﻫﻢ،. ﺣﺘﻰ ﻗﺪﻣﻮﺍ ﻋﺼﺎﺭﺓ ﺍﺑﺪﺍﻋﻬﻢ. ﻃﻮﺑﻰ ﻟﻬﻢ. ﻭﻃﻮﺑﻰ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻳﻤﻬﺪ ﻟﻬﻢ ﺩﺭﺑﻬﻢ”
“أما أنا فأقول لكم إن مؤمنا واحدا يغني عن جيش من العباقرة”
“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
“The difficulties connected with my criterion of demarcation (D) are important, but must not be exaggerated. It is vague, since it is a methodological rule, and since the demarcation between science and nonscience is vague. But it is more than sharp enough to make a distinction between many physical theories on the one hand, and metaphysical theories, such as psychoanalysis, or Marxism (in its present form), on the other. This is, of course, one of my main theses; and nobody who has not understood it can be said to have understood my theory. The situation with Marxism is, incidentally, very different from that with psychoanalysis. Marxism was once a scientific theory: it predicted that capitalism would lead to increasing misery and, through a more or less mild revolution, to socialism; it predicted that this would happen first in the technically highest developed countries; and it predicted that the technical evolution of the means of production would lead to social, political, and ideological developments, rather than the other way round. But the (so-called) socialist revolution came first in one of the technically backward countries. And instead of the means of production producing a new ideology, it was Lenin s and Stalin s ideology that Russia must push forward with its industrialization ( Socialism is dictatorship of the proletariat plus electrification ) which promoted the new development of the means of production. Thus one might say that Marxism was once a science, but one which was refuted by some of the facts which happened to clash with its predictions (I have here mentioned just a few of these facts). However, Marxism is no longer a science; for it broke the methodological rule that we must accept falsification, and it immunized itself against the most blatant refutations of its predictions. Ever since then, it can be described only as nonscience—as a metaphysical dream, if you like, married to a cruel reality. Psychoanalysis is a very different case. It is an interesting psychological metaphysics (and no doubt there is some truth in it, as there is so often in metaphysical ideas), but it never was a science. There may be lots of people who are Freudian or Adlerian cases: Freud himself was clearly a Freudian case, and Adler an Adlerian case. But what prevents their theories from being scientific in the sense here described is, very simply, that they do not exclude any physically possible human behaviour. Whatever anybody may do is, in principle, explicable in Freudian or Adlerian terms. (Adler s break with Freud was more Adlerian than Freudian, but Freud never looked on it as a refutation of his theory.) The point is very clear. Neither Freud nor Adler excludes any particular person s acting in any particular way, whatever the outward circumstances. Whether a man sacrificed his life to rescue a drowning, child (a case of sublimation) or whether he murdered the child by drowning him (a case of repression) could not possibly be predicted or excluded by Freud s theory; the theory was compatible with everything that could happen—even without any special immunization treatment. Thus while Marxism became non-scientific by its adoption of an immunizing strategy, psychoanalysis was immune to start with, and remained so. In contrast, most physical theories are pretty free of immunizing tactics and highly falsifiable to start with. As a rule, they exclude an infinity of conceivable possibilities.”
“The intelligence suffers today automatically in consequence of the attack on all authority, advantage, or privilege. These things are not done away with, it is needless to say, but numerous scapegoats are made of the less politically powerful, to satisfy the egalitarian rage awakened.”
“The digital revolution is far more significant than the invention of writing or even of printing.”
“The crisis creates situations which are dangerous in the short run, since the various strata of the population are not all capable of orienting themselves equally swiftly, or of reorganizing with the same rhythm. The traditional ruling class, which has numerous trained cadres, changes men and programmes and, with greater speed than is achieved by the subordinate classes, reabsorbs the control that was slipping from its grasp. Perhaps it may make sacrifices, and expose itself to an uncertain future by demagogic promises; but it retains power, reinforces it for the time being, and uses it to crush its adversary and disperse his leading cadres, who cannot be be very numerous or highly trained.”
“I think the notion of dreaming in a time where we are told that it is foolish, futile or not useful is one of the most revolutionary things we can do. To have our lives determined by our dreams of a free world--instead of reactions to a state-imposed reality--is one of the most powerful tools of decolonization.”
“No revolutionary movement is complete without its poetical expression.”
“A blind pursuit of cheap popularity has nothing to do with revolution. [Political Report of the National Executive Committee to the forty-ninth A.N.C. National Conference, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 17 December 1994]”
“Let us not forget that revolutions are accomplished through people, although they be nameless. Materialism does not ignore the feeling, thinking, and acting man, but explains him.”
“A personal revolution is the consequence of confronting self - as is.”
“Surprisingly, I came closer to really knowing myself, not because I feared death, because we were always aware of it, but rather because I was always challenging myself about what had led me there and about how strong my commitment really was.”