Domination Quotes

“Monstrous not just for what they were, but for what was done to them, as pitiable as Mary Shelly’s creation, as human and forlorn.”
― William Kely McClung, Super Ninja: The Sword of Heaven

“I was learning about journalism, and I was learning about politics. I discovered there was plenty of politics in journalism, dumping a story, a great story, to keep the Mayor happy. I heard Coach Michael’s voice in my head: ‘You can’t run and gun, girl.’ Mitch’s voice: ‘You can’t wear that bikini, girl.’ Even Janice’s voice: ‘You can’t tell anyone, ever.’ Can’t. Can’t. Can’t. That’s why I wasn’t going to back down (about killing the story).”
― Karen Hinton, Penis Politics: A Memoir of Women, Men and Power

“On the other side of the room, Bast cursed her luck. Damn. She couldn’t wait now. It took time to set up a switch like this. She would have to take the second option. A pity, the Rowanberg woman was the right size physically, and the facial adjustment would not be difficult, nor the hair, and she was one of the targets on her list. Option Two was slightly taller, but she would have to do.”
― Patrick G Cox, First into the Fray

“One reason she had been as successful an assassin had always been her attention to detail, but the weeks of using the cream to maintain her disguise as the hapless dock technician, were taking their toll. Details slipped her mind occasionally, and concentrating was sometimes hard. She’d used the time she had available to study her target, learn his mannerisms and speech pattern, food and clothing preferences. Most of this possible with the right programs and access to the dock AI system. Those hours ‘at work’ in the Fabrication Unit had been well spent, and supplemented by frequenting places where she could observe him. The lack of her usual team of ‘daemons’ had created a number of difficulties, and though she wondered how Security had managed to take them down so quickly, she didn’t waste time worrying over it. Now she knew who he associated with, and his sexuality—all of it vital if she was to escape detection in such a high profile role.”
― Patrick G Cox, First into the Fray

“James climbed into the transport vehicle, and the moment Felicity’s eyes met his was practically charged with electricity, the attraction was so strong. Her smile was just the balm he needed.
“Here I am, Captain, alive and well, never better. I think I even lost a few pounds in my enforced confinement!”
“Felicity, good to see you. You look great as always. But I have to ask, do you usually resort to such extreme measures when you want to stand up a partner for a dinner date?”
He saw the tease in her eyes as she smiled at him. “Only in exceptional circumstances—or when someone leaves me no option.”
― Patrick G Cox, First into the Fray

“Because we tend--often correctly--to associate unfreedom with the presence of oppressive circumstances that we can and should work to change, it makes sense that we might instinctively treat the knot of freedom and unfreedom as a source of perfidy and pain. To expose how domination disguises itself as liberation, we become compelled to pull the strands of the knot apart, aiming to extricate the emancipatory from the oppressive.”
― Maggie Nelson, On Freedom: Four Songs of Care and Constraint

“Then I am going to sit in that chair. Until the moment you crawl over there—I will have to insist upon your crawling—you can still say no and turn back. Once you are on your knees for me, I need you to know you are giving yourself to me until I am satisfied. Say you understand.”
― Valentine Glass, The Temptation of Eden

“I can always tell an intelligent man is attracted to me in the ways that he attempts to dominate over me with his intellect. I can always spot a wiser man when he doesn't.”
― Echo Kind

“And so is this figure,
Who drives, reins in, and is carried.

Is it not so? - hunted and then broken in,
This wiry and tough nature of Being?
The path and the turning: And yet an impulse, comprehended:
New horizons. And the two become one.”
― Rainer Maria Rilke, Sonnets to Orpheus

“Like an invading army, men attacked, conquered their position, retreated once satisfied and left all their waste behind.”
― Laura Tolomei, Virtus Game, The Game: Author’s Cut

“There are two kinds of Fascists: those who give orders and those who take them. A popular base gives Fascism the legs it needs to march, the lungs it uses to proclaim, and the muscle it relies on to menace—but that’s Fascism from the neck down. To create tyranny out of the fears and hopes of average people, money is required, and so, too, ambition and twisted ideas. It is the combination that kills. In the absence of wealthy backers, we likely would never have heard of Corporal Mussolini or Corporal Hitler. In the absence of their compulsion to dominate at all costs, neither would have caused the harm he did.

Most political movements of appreciable size are populist to one degree or another, but that doesn’t make them Fascist, or even intolerant. Whether they seek to limit immigration or expand it, criticize Islam or defend it, lobby for peace or agitate for war, all are democratic, provided they pursue their goals by democratic means. What makes a movement Fascist is not ideology but the willingness to do whatever is necessary—including the use of force and trampling on the rights of others—to achieve victory and command obedience.”
― Madeleine K. Albright, Fascism: A Warning

“People fight for equality until the first chance for domination.”
― Ljupka Cvetanova, The New Land

“Public torture, in seventeenth-century Europe, created searing, unforgettable spectacles of pain and suffering in order to convey the message that a system in which husbands could brutalize wives, and parents beat children, was ultimately a form of love. … It seems to us that this connection – or better perhaps confusion – between care and domination is utterly critical to the larger questions of how we lost the ability freely to recreate ourselves by recreating our relationships with one another. It is critical, that is , to understanding how we got stuck, and why these days we can hardly envisage our own past or future as anything other than a transition from smaller to larger cages.”
― David Graeber, David Wengrow, The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity

“Around the center leader Muktesh Thomas Forsberg and Jivan Kavya Eva Wells at the Osho meditation Center in Stockholm have gathered people, who systematically have used their positions at the center for power abuses. By using lies and vicious gossip as a means of expressing aggressiveness  ,these people have systematically committed abuse of power and trying to dominate people.These people express envy, condemnation and domination through lies and gross slenderness. It is really the ego that wants to condemn and control.  But these women think that they are aware, but they are really just ignorant, which is the blindness of the ego.When I visited the center, which I had not visited for almost 15 years, I was met by the therapist Moa Bergmark, who told me: "You know that this is a dysfunctional group. But when I began to confront the lies and vicious rumors about me and the dysfunctional structure of the center, Moa Bergmark was suddenly very quiet. This made it obvious that Bergmark was actually a part of the collective unconscious of the dysfunctional group.
When Teresa, the center leader who was appointed by Osho himself, invited me to work with therapy- and meditation courses together with her, I felt joy and support  from Teresa. But when Teresa left the center and Muktesh Thomas Forsberg became the center leader, the joy and support disappeared, and I felt that he was just trying to control me.Anutosh Malin William-Olsson, one of the current gossip mongers at the Osho center in Stockholm heard a private conversation between me and my friend Eric Rolf, former consultant to John Lennon, during the eighties, which she had nothing to do with and which she did not understand, but she used this  to spread a lie and a gross negative slender negative rumors about me. Pradeepa Eva Tallqvist, one of the other gossip mongers said: "Giten has suchan integrity" and I thought: "Do these people have any integrity at all." Anubhuti Cecelia Lind commented on two of my students by saying in a  negative way: "Here come the disciples of Giten."
Premleena Lena Wettergran told Vanya Pernilla Mårtens that she had done a course with me and said: "It is good that we have someone like Giten in Sweden", which Vanya also turned into something negative and said that I was nothing compared to the visiting therapists. It was Premleena who told me this, but when Premleena got entangled in the involved the dysfunctional structure and the collective unconscious of the center she did not even say hello to me any longer.
The center leader Muktesh also joined in with the old woman and confirmed the gross and negative slender by saying: "Giten is so stubborn."
My former girlfriend Marga told me that Anna Ganga Hoffman was spreading lies and gross slenderabout me at the Osho center in Stockholm. Marga had been sitting together with Hoffman and the other gossip mongers at the center,and when Hoffman realized that Marga was sitting there, she wanted Marga to confirm  her lies. Marga knew that these were just vicious lies, but she remained quiet because she did not have the courage to confront Hoffman and the gossip mongers at the Osho center in Stockholm  about their sick lies and gross slender.
Prem Pathik in Nepal commented: "This must be a few people, who are really not living their lives as they like. These women who are searching  for a deeper space can never know you."
It was also these people that my friend, Eric Rolf ,former consultant to John Lennon, met at the Osho center  in Stockholm, and she commented:  "I have been around, but these people just wanted to  control me. I did not enjoy it so much."
I wrote a letter to Osho himself about the situation and the reply I receivws was: "humor is the highest state of consciousness.”
― Swami Dhyan Giten, Meditation: A Love Affair with the Whole - Thousand and One Flowers of Silence, Love, Joy, Truth, Freedom, Beauty and the Divine

“Two enclosures, one for cattle and one for men, standing side by side. Sometimes the smell is familiar. Only the voices on one side and the mooing on the other distinguish the men from the ruminants.”
― Ana Paula Maia, Of Cattle and Men

“Senhor Milo knows cattlemen, he's cut from the same cloth. No one goes unpunished. They're men of cattle and blood.”
― Ana Paula Maia, Of Cattle and Men

“Edgar picks up the mallet. The steer comes up close to him. Edgar looks into the animal's eyes and caresses its forehead. The cow stomps one hoof, wags its tail and snorts. Edgar shushes the animal and its movements slow. There is something about this shushing that makes the cattle drowsy, it establishes a mutual trust. An intimate connection. With his thumb smeared in lime, Edgar Wilson makes the sign of the cross between the ruminant's eyes and takes two steps back. This is his ritual as a stun operator.”
― Ana Paula Maia, Of Cattle and Men

“I can always tell an intelligent man is attracted to me in the ways that he attempts to dominate over me with his intelligect.  I can always spot a wiser man when he doesn't.”
― Echo Kind

“The law is a site where marginalization is challenged and resisted by those who are subjugated. On the one hand, the law reinforces the patriarchal discourse, yet on the other hand, it has the authority to set out the social order. Women and marginalized groups have used the law to challenge the hierarchy and dominant notions”
― Shalu Nigam

“Moi, je suis de ce sexe-là, celui qui doit se taire, qu'on fait taire. Et qui doit le prendre avec courtoisie, encore montrer patte blanche.”
― Virginie Despentes, King Kong théorie

“I began to realize that if violence was my last resort, then I was still enmeshed in the belief that violence saves. And that meant that no matter how much I might object to any particular form of domination, I was still trusting domination and violence to bring about justice and peace.”
― Walter Wink, The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium

“I have seen enough of God’s wily ways with the Powers to stake my life on the side of hope.”
― Walter Wink, The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium

“A powerful darkness rules our world and we cannot fight against it.”
― H.C. Roberts, Harp and the Lyre: Extraction

“Women cannot get power by violence, so they need to get power by control.”
― Jack Freestone

“Despite all odds, the practice of single mothering signifies a political act of resistance against patriarchy and intersecting inequalities. Being on the margins, oppressed, and excluded by society, single mothers, through their active and empowered mothering, are contesting the marginalities and questioning the domination.”
― Shalu Nigam, Single Mothers, Patriarchy and Citizenship in India: Rethinking Lone Motherhood through the Lens of Socio-legal and Policy Framework

“The core of the anarchist tradition, as I understand it, is that power is always illegitimate, unless it proves itself to be legitimate. So the burden of proof is always on those who claim that some authoritarian hierarchic relation is legitimate. If they can't prove it, then it should be dismantled. Can you ever prove it? Well, it's a heavy burden of proof to bear, but I think sometimes you can bear it. So to take a homely example, if I'm walking down the street with my four-year-old granddaughter, and she starts to run into the street, and I grab her arm and pull her back, that's an exercise of power and authority, but I can give a justification for it, and it's obvious what the justification would be. And maybe there are other cases where you can justify it. But the question that always should be asked uppermost in our mind is, "Why should I accept it?" It's the responsibility of those who exercise power to show that somehow it's legitimate. It's not the responsibility of anyone else to show that it's illegitimate. It's illegitimate by assumption, if it's a relation of authority among human beings which places some above others. That's illegitimate by assumption. Unless you can give a strong argument to show that it's right, you've lost.”
― Noam Chomsky

“So, if you take a look at, say, the work of Rousseau that I quoted, which is the 'Second Discourse on Inequality,' that's his most libertarian writing. He begins with a pretty strictly Cartesian view of animals as being machines, just reflexive machines, compelled to do what they do by internal and external circumstances, without the creative character of human thought and behavior. He then says, again in roughly Cartesian terms, that what is unique and distinctive about humans is this internal creative capacity. That's what makes humans different from the rest of the natural world.

Then comes a thesis which is not proved, but it, I think, is plausible. Namely, any social arrangements that inhibit or constrain that free creative capacity are fundamentally illegitimate unless they can justify themselves. That means any structure of authority, domination, hierarchy - whether it's in a patriarchal family, or in international affairs, or anything in between - should be subject to challenge. It's not self-justifying.

And I mean, you could see the chain of thinking. Notice, it's not a proof, but beginning with the observation that inherent to human nature, what's special about us, is this creative character. The free need to inquire, to create, to act, to choose what you do, how you speak, how you interact and so on. There's kind of a chain of thinking from that to the conclusion that the social structures which inhibit that are illegitimate unless proved otherwise.

Like, sometimes you can give an argument in favor of authority. So, if I'm walking down the street with, say, my three-year-old granddaughter, and she runs into the street, and I grab her arm and pull her back, I think I can give a justification for that. But the point is that any form of authority and domination requires justification. And usually, you can't justify it, in which case you have to dismantle it and replace it by something more free and just.”
― Noam Chomsky

“The responsibility of raising the challenge is typically in the hands of those who recognize that they have a subordinate status. It's very hard to recognize that. People lived for millennia without recognizing that they are being subordinated in systems of power. It's true of women for example or slaves. Most slave societies were accepted by the slaves as legitimate and, in fact, necessary. And the same is true of, for example, people who have jobs today in our society. Almost without exception they consider it legitimate for them to be in a position where they have to rent themselves in order to survive. That's certainly not obvious. And in fact, if you go back a century ago, it was not only considered not obvious, it was considered outlandish by ordinary working people. I'm not talking about Marxists or socialists or anybody like that, but say mill hands in Lowell, Massachusetts who never heard of socialism, who regarded it [renting oneself] as a form of slavery and were complaining that they had not fought the civil war to replace chattel slavery by wage slavery, and that therefore those who work in the mills ought to own them, because that's the republican rights that we won in the American revolution and so on and so forth. So, you know, it's not obvious. But, by now, I think enough indoctrination and propaganda and so on has taken place so people do regard that form of subordination to external authority as legitimate. Whether they should is another question, but the fact is they do, just as, for most of history, women have accepted a subordinate role as correct and proper and so on, and slaves did, and people living in feudal societies [did]. In a feudal society, people had a place, some kind of role, and, quite typically, these societies were stable because people regarded those structures as legitimate. The same is true of religious structures. Throughout human life there's a whole variety of systems of authority and oppression and domination and so on, which are usually accepted as legitimate by the people subordinated to them. When they don't, you have the struggles and revolutions and sometimes changes and sometimes brutality and so on.”
― Noam Chomsky

“Human rights are rooted in human nature, and we violate fundamental human rights when people are forced to be slaves, wage slaves, servants of external power, subjected to systems of authority and domination, manipulated and controlled "for their own good.”
― Noam Chomsky, The Essential Chomsky

“And therefore the responsibility of raising the challenge is typically in the hands of those who recognize that they have a subordinate status. It's very hard to recognize that. I mean, people lived, you know, for millennia without recognizing that they are being subordinated in systems of power.

I mean, it's true of women, for example, or slaves, you know. I mean, most slave societies were accepted by the slaves as legitimate and, in fact, necessary. And the same is true of, for example, people have jobs today in our society, almost without exception, they consider it legitimate for them to be in a position where they have to rent themselves in order to survive.

That's certainly not obvious, you know. And in fact, if you go back a century ago, it was not only considered not obvious but it was considered outlandish by American working people. I'm not talking about Marxists or socialists, or anybody like that, but say, millhands in Lowell, Massachusetts, who never heard of socialism, who regarded it as a form of slavery, and were complaining that they had not fought the Civil War to replace chattel slavery by wage labor and that therefore, those who work in the mills ought to own them because that's the republican rights that we won in the American Revolution, and so on and so forth.

So, you know, it's not obvious, but by now, I think, enough indoctrination and propaganda have taken place so people do regard that form of subordination to external authority as legitimate. Whether they should is another question, but the fact is they do, just as for most of history, women have accepted a subordinate role as correct and proper and so on. And slaves did, and people living in, say, feudal societies.

In a feudal society, people had a place, you know, some kind of rule, and quite typically the societies were stable because people regarded those structures as legitimate. The same is true of religious structures, and I mean, throughout human life, there's a whole variety of systems of authority, and oppression, and domination, and so on, which are usually accepted as legitimate by the people subordinated to them. When they don't, you have struggles and revolutions, and sometimes changes, and sometimes brutality, and so on.”
― Noam Chomsky