“be aggressive, BE-BE Aggressive! B-E
A-G-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E”

—  Laurie Halse Anderson, Speak

Source: Speak

Last update June 7, 2022. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "be aggressive, BE-BE Aggressive! B-E A-G-G-R-E-S-S-I-V-E" by Laurie Halse Anderson?
Laurie Halse Anderson photo
Laurie Halse Anderson147
American children's writer 1961

Related quotes

Hugo Chávez photo

“Enough already with the imperialist aggression! Down with the U. S. empire! It must be said, in the entire world: Down with the empire!”

Hugo Chávez (1954–2013) 48th President of Venezuela

Remarks during a meeting with US activist Cindy Sheehan in January 2006.
2006

“We want Futurist clothes to be comfortable and practical
Dynamic
Aggressive
Shocking
Energetic
Violent
Flying (i. e. giving the idea of flying, rising and running)
Peppy
Joyful
Illuminating (in order to have light even in the rain)
Phosphorescent
Lit by electric lamps.”

Giacomo Balla (1871–1958) Italian artist

(Manuscript, 1913); as quoted at dekorera.tumblr: Futurist manifesto of men&#x27;s clothing http://dekorera.tumblr.com/post/3212646425/futurist-manifesto-of-mens-clothing-by-giacomo <br class="br">Futurist Manifesto of Men&#x27;s clothing,&#x27; 1913/1914

John F. Kennedy photo

“The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged ultimately leads to war.”

John F. Kennedy (1917–1963) 35th president of the United States of America

1962, Cuban Missile Crisis speech

Allen C. Guelzo photo

“[S]lavery was neither a backward nor a dying system in the 1850s. It was aggressive, dynamic, and mobile, and by pandering to the racial prejudices of a white republic starved for labor, it was perfectly capable of expansion.”

Allen C. Guelzo (1953) American historian

Source: 2010s, Fateful Lightning: A New History of the Civil War and Reconstruction (2012), Chapter One

“Doublespeak embedded in a convenient matrix of anticommunist ideology was essential, as the U. S. establishment was obliged to pretend (or internalize the belief) that the huge global expansion of the U. S. political economy on which they had embarked was “defensive” and responsive to some external threat; that we were “containing” somebody else who was committing “aggression” and threatening our “national security.” The words and phrases “defense,” “containment,” “aggression,” and “national security” are core items of the doublespeak lexicon, essential ingredients of the ink squirted out by imperial cuttlefish.”

Edward S. Herman (1925–2017) American journalist

Source: Beyond Hypocrisy, 1992, p. 20.

Mao Zedong photo

“If the U. S. monopoly capitalist groups persist in pushing their policies of aggression and war, the day is bound to come when they will be hanged by the people of the whole world. The same fate awaits the accomplices of the United States.”

Mao Zedong (1893–1976) Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China

Chapter 6 https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch06.htm, originally published in Speech at the Supreme State Conference (September 8, 1958). <br class="br">Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book)

Murray N. Rothbard photo

“A parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i. e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e. g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die.”

Murray N. Rothbard book The Ethics of Liberty

Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.
Children and rights, p. 100
The Ethics of Liberty (1982)

“It is a common error, as we have pointed out several times, to interpret opposition to U. S. intervention and aggression as support for the programs of its victims, a useful device for state propagandists but one that often has no basis in fact.”

Edward S. Herman (1925–2017) American journalist

Source: After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology, with Noam Chomsky, 1979, p. 256.

Edward O. Wilson photo

“Are human beings innately aggressive? …The answer to it is yes. …Only by redefining the words "innateness" and "aggression" to the point of uselessness might we correctly say that human aggressiveness is not innate.”

Edward O. Wilson book On Human Nature

On Human Nature (1978), Ch.5 Aggression

Herbert Spencer photo

“Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression, and by aggression.”

Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) English philosopher, biologist, sociologist, and prominent classical liberal political theorist

&lt;!-- The first sentence is attributed as a statement of 1850 in the introduction of Our Enemy, the State http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets0.html by Albert Jay Nock --&gt; <br class="br">The Man versus the State (1884), The Sins of Our Legislators <br class="br">Context: Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression, and by aggression. In small undeveloped societies where for ages complete peace has continued, there exists nothing like what we call Government: no coercive agency, but mere honorary headship, if any headship at all. In these exceptional communities, unaggressive and from special causes unaggressed upon, there is so little deviation from the virtues of truthfulness, honesty, justice, and generosity, that nothing beyond an occasional expression of public opinion by informally-assembled elders is needful. Conversely, we find proofs that, at first recognized but temporarily during leadership in war, the authority of a chief is permanently established by continuity of war; and grows strong where successful aggression ends in subjection of neighboring tribes. And thence onwards, examples furnished by all races put beyond doubt the truth, that the coercive power of the chief, developing into king, and king of kings (a frequent title in the ancient East), becomes great in proportion as conquest becomes habitual and the union of subdued nations extensive. Comparisons disclose a further truth which should be ever present to us — the truth that the aggressiveness of the ruling power inside a society increases with its aggressiveness outside the society. As, to make an efficient army, the soldiers in their several grades must be subordinate to the commander; so, to make an efficient fighting community, must the citizens be subordinate to the ruling power. They must furnish recruits to the extent demanded, and yield up whatever property is required.<br>An obvious implication is that the ethics of Government, originally identical with the ethics of war, must long remain akin to them; and can diverge from them only as warlike activities and preparations become less.

Related topics