I would like to believe and give in to my naiveté, I would like to embrace the fact that I am back in the place where the long fingers of civilization cannot reach me and rip my heart out. At this moment, I would like to embrace myself. I would like to be unconcerned with the rest of the world and take pleasure in knowing that I have found my home. All of my life, all of my adult life, which began with the first notion of understanding, I have been searching for this sensation. You, cruel world, have tried to bring me down, tried to crush me with your code of conduct, your ethics, and your preconceived limits on liberty. You have raped me and robbed me of happiness; you have stolen my dreams and my dignity, leaving me to rot with the rest of you. Today, I know I have escaped your poisoned web; I know your rules do not apply to me, for after all you have done to crush me, I am still standing proudly above the set of your sick play. I am in love—a feeling you no longer thought I was capable of. I am in love—living, breathing, dreaming again—triumphant over your sick schemes.

Devil-boy Jack: "A higher power than ours directs us against the wych-kin. There is no turning back."Thaniel Fox: "There is no higher power, Devil-boy! And I am no-one's pawn, neither man nor wych nor whatever entity you speak of."Devil-boy Jack: "I do not speak of entities. I speak of the force that created the physics of the universe, the force that makes time flow forward and not allow everything to happen at once, the force that sets the patterns to which the planets turn. Its weapons are coincidence, unlikelihood, happenstance. It is there when a man stops suddenly to pick up a coin dropped by another man ten days before, and the woman who is to be his wife bumps into him, and five hundred years hence their offspring rules half the world. It is there when a chance comment causes a scientist to think, What if...? and ten years later a great plague is cured. It is so vast that what we call chaos is simply another part of its order, with a shape too big to see. It has no name, nor will it ever have, though man may hint darkly at fate and destiny. It is what it is... the pattern. We may choose our own paths, but the pattern is always ahead of us. It is a way. It is the way.

As summer neared, as the evening lengthened there came to the wakeful, the hopeful, walking the beach, stirring the pool, imaginations of the strangest kind- of flesh turned to atoms which drove before the wind, of stars flashing in their hearts, of outwardly the scattered parts of the vision within. In those mirrors, the minds of men, in those pools of uneasy water, in which cloud forever and shadows form, dreams persisted; and it was impossible to resist the strange intimation which every gull, flower, tree, man and woman, and the white earth itself seemed to declare (but if you questioned at once to withdraw) that good triumph, happiness prevails, order rules, or to resist the extra ordinary stimulus to range hither and thither in search of some absolute good, some crystal of intensity remote from the known pleasures and familiar virtues, something alien to the processes of domestic life, single, hard, bright, like a diamond in the sand which would render the possessor secure. Moreover softened and acquiescent, the spring with their bees humming and gnats dancing threw her cloud about her, veiled her eyes, averted her head, and among passing shadows and fights of small rain seemed to have taken upon her knowledge of the sorrows of mankind.

Your moral code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice…It demands that he starts, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not. A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an isolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold a man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality…To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. (The) myth decleares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge-he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil-he became a moral being…The evils for which they damn him are reasn, morality, creativeness, joy-all the cardinal values of his existence….the essence of his nature as a man. Whatever he was- that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love- he was not a man.

We've reached a point in human history where higher education no longer works. As a result of technology, higher education in its traditional college setting no longer works. It will never be effective or progressive enough to keep up with the growing needs of employers who look to college institutions for their future employees.I can appreciate the good intent the college system set out to achieve. For previous generations, the formula actually worked. Students enrolled into universities that were affordable, they gained marketable skills and they earned good jobs. Since there was a proven track record of success, parents instilled the value of college in their children thinking they would achieve the same success story they did, but unfortunately Wall Street was watching. Wall Street, the Federal Government and the college system ganged up and skyrocketed the cost of tuition to record highs. This was easy to do because not only did they have posters blanketing high schools showing kids what a loser they would be if they didn't go to college. They also had mom and dad at home telling them the same thing.This system - spending 4+ years pursuing a college education when the world is changing at the speed of light - no longer works and it's not fixable. We now have the biggest employer's market in human history, where employers have their pick of the litter, and because of this employees will get paid less and less and benefits will continue to erode.

Нима всеки нормален човек няма в себе си също десетина личности, както шизофреника?Спирам се пред огледалото. Откъде идва перспективата, която не същестува, дълбочината, която мами, пространството, което е плоскост. И кой е този, който ме гледа в огледалото1 а не съществува?

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world...Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

There may be some truth (atheists) do not need to believe in a god to be good, but then if they do not believe in a god, who do they believe gives the Universal Law of following good and shunning evil? Obviously, mankind. But then that is a dangerous thing, for if a man does not believe in a god capable of giving perfect laws, he is in the position of declaring all laws come from man, and as man is imperfect, he can declare that as fallible men make imperfect laws, he can pick and choose what he wishes to follow, that which, in his own mind seems good. He does not believe in divine retribution, therefore he can also declare his own morality contrary to what the divine may decree simply because he believes there is no divine decree. He may follow his every whim and passion, declaring it to be good when it may be very evil, for he like all men is imperfect, so how can he tell what is verily good? The atheist is in danger of mistaking vice for good and consequently follow another slave master and tyrant, his own physical and mental weakness. Evil would be wittingly or unwittingly perpetrated, therefore, to recognise the existence of a perfect divine being that gives perfect Universal Laws is much better than not to believe in a god, for if there is a perfect god, they will not allow their laws to be broken with impunity as in the case with many corrupt judges on earth, but will punish accordingly in due time. Therefore, to be pious and reverent is the surest path to true freedom as a perfect god will give perfect laws to prevent all manner of slavery, tyranny and moral wantonness, even if we do not understand why they are good laws at times.

Δε γίνεται να εμποδίσεις τη δημιουργία μαρτύρων. Το μόνο που μπορεί κανείς να κάνει είναι να κοιτάξει να περιορίσει τον αριθμό τους. Αν ήξερα κάποιους Χριστιανούς τον καιρό του Νέρωνα, θα προσπαθούσα να τους σώσω απ' τα λιοντάρια, εξηγώντας τους πως είναι προτιμότερο να ζει κανείς με την πίστη του, παρά να πεθαίνει γι' αυτήν.

My mother delayed my enrollment in the Fascist scouts, the Balilla, as long as possible, firstly because she did not want me to learn how to handle weapons, but also because the meetings that were then held on Sunday mornings (before the Fascist Saturday was instituted) consisted mostly of a Mass in the scouts' chapel. When I had to be enrolled as part of my school duties, she asked that I be excused from the Mass; this was impossible for disciplinary reasons, but my mother saw to it that the chaplain and the commander were aware that I was not a Catholic and that I should not be asked to perform any external acts of devotion in church. In short, I often found myself in situations different from others, looked on as if I were some strange animal. I do not think this harmed me: one gets used to persisting in one's habits, to finding oneself isolated for good reasons, to putting up with the discomfort that this causes, to finding the right way to hold on to positions which are not shared by the majority. But above all I grew up tolerant of others' opinions, particularly in the field of religion, remembering how irksome it was to hear myself mocked because I did not follow the majority's beliefs. And at the same time I have remained totally devoid of that taste for anticlericalism which is so common in those who are educated surrounded by religion. I have insisted on setting down these memories because I see that many non-believing friends let their children have a religious education 'so as not to give them complexes', 'so that they don't feel different from the others.' I believe that this behavior displays a lack of courage which is totally damaging pedagogically. Why should a young child not begin to understand that you can face a small amount of discomfort in order to stay faithful to an idea? And in any case, who said that young people should not have complexes? Complexes arise through a natural attrition with the reality that surrounds us, and when you have complexes you try to overcome them. Life is in fact nothing but this triumphing over one's own complexes, without which the formation of a character and personality does not happen.

تدرك السياسة, وخصوصاً حين تكون قامعة مستبدة، أن العقل المنفتح غير المقيد هو أخطر ما يتهددها؛ وذلك من حيث يؤشر علي أن نقيضها من الحكم الرشيد هو المؤدي- وليس سواه- إلي تحقيق صالح المجموع، ومن هنا ما تسعي إليه، علي الدوام، من إزاحته وإبعاده.وإذ تدرك استحالة إنجاز هذا الإنجاز بما تمتلك من وسائل الترويع والبطش، فإنها تتوسل بالدين والشرع لتضعهما في مواجهة معه، وللغرابة، فإن ذلك لا ينتهي إلي إسكات صوت العقل فحسب، بل إلي تهديد منظومتي الدين والشرع علي نحو كامل.

يتبدي الوحي، إذن، لا بوصفه من قبيل المعرفة المعطاة المفروضة على الوعي كسلطة لا سبيل أمامه إلا لمحض الإذعان والخضوع لها، بقدر ما يمثل نوعاً من الاستجابة الخلاقة المطلوبة لوضع إنساني مأزوم لا يقدر الوعي؛ الذي هو بنية تطورية في جوهرها، على التعاطي معه في مرحلة دنيا من مراحل تطوره. وهكذا فإن الوحي يتبلور كسند ومعين للوعي، ونقطة ارتكاز يستند إليها في سعيه إلى تجاوز أزمة واقعه، ولا يتبلور أبداً كضد ونقيض يفرض نفسه كسلطة متعالية لا يملك الوعي إلا محض التبعية لها.

إن الأطلقة( كآلية تفكير تسود فضاء التفكير العربي من دون تمييز بين تراثي وحداثي)- وليس سواها- هي ما يحيل تجارب البشر من تاريخ حي إلي نص أو أصل جامد يقف خارجه; علي النحو الذي يكون معه أشبه بالشاهد المصمت المعلق علي قبر صاحبه, والذي لا يعرف الخلف اللاحق إلا التعبد في ظلاله. وتلك هي جوهر الممارسة السلفية; علي أن يكون معلوما أن هذه الممارسة لا تقف عند حدود من يقال أنهم سلفيو هذا الزمان, بل تتجاوزهم إلي من يقال أنهم حداثيوه أيضا. و سواء مورست هذه الأطلقة, تحت يافطة الدين أو العلمانية, فإنها تمثل خطراً داهماً علي الدولة.

تنبني مُحاججة هذا الكتاب على أن دولة الإرادة المشخصة التي تغطي بعوارها واستبدادها الفضاءات الواسعة لعالم العرب الراهن، إنما تجد ما يؤسسها، واعية أو غير واعية، في الأغوار السحيقة للخطاب الذي تسيَّد فضاء الثقافة في الإسلام؛ والتي ينصهر فيها السياسي مع العقائدي والأنطولوجي؛ وأنه من دون اكتناه ما يتفاعل في هذه الأغوار، والوعي بما تنطوي عليه ويشتغل فيها، وتفكيكه، فإنه لن يكون الانتقال ممكناً أبداً من دولة الطغيان والقمع إلى دولة القانون والشرع، بل سيبقى الاستبدادا عتياً، يعيد إنتاج نفسه من وراء زخارف الديقراطية والحداثة وأكثر زركشاتها لمعاناً وبريقاً

وبالرغم من هذا الاتفاق بين إصلاحيي القرن التاسع عشر ودعاة هذه الأيام التليفزيونيين, في قراءة أزمة التأخر العربي بعامل الابتعاد عن الإسلام, فإنه يبقي أن قراءة كل منهما لتلك الظاهرة تختلف عن قراءة الآخر لها علي نحو كامل. وللمفارقة فإن القراءة الإصلاحية, القادمة من القرن التاسع عشر, لهذه الظاهرة, كانت أكثر وعيا واستنارة من القراءة الراهنة التي يقدمها دعاة هذه الأيام لها. إذ فيما يلح دعاة هذه الأيام علي تفسير ابتعاد الناس عن الإسلام بالميل المتأصل في نفوسهم إلي الهوي; وعلي النحو الذي يترتب عليه ضرورة زجرهم وقمعهم, فإن رجل الإصلاح قد ألح, في المقابل, علي مسئولية الاستبداد الكبري في إبعاد الناس عن جوهر الإسلام. ومن هنا فإن رجل الإصلاح لم يكن أكثر فهما فقط, بل وكان أكثر جرأة وشجاعة من شيوخ هذه الأيام البؤساء; الذين لا يفعل الواحد منهم- للأسف- إلا أن يكون معينا للمستبد في السيطرة علي المحكومين.