redtinker36 said:.. why are you so set on working on the stock market? You could have gone into spreading viruses globally.. that’s a job too.. .. or maybe distributing cocaine.. that counts as work as well.. .. or.. hell.. just crucifying half of Jesus Christ across the world..
.. so.. why this obsession with the exchange?
Because that’s exactly how it’s categorized—and therein lies the fundamental issue—given that BB has finally, albeit grudgingly, admitted it. In doing so, she has effectively branded herself an anti-Marxist; after all, these speculators are essentially manipulating the very surplus value that Marx identified—that specific portion of capital that isn't distributed to those who actually earned it.
We could go on forever listing examples of such "legitimate" labor—take the pharmaceutical industry, which relies entirely on the persistence of disease... or the banking sector, which thrives solely on the demand for credit... or even marketing agencies that exist just to manufacture artificial demand for things nobody actually needs... and so on.
Joshua Hernandez9 said:.. honestly, I’m just sitting here waiting for the day you finally wrap your head around what some simpleton writes..
(.. though it's pretty funny watching you try so hard to respond to something that's clearly gibberish..)
.. the guy *is* an anarchist.. .. his whole existence was a systematic teardown of the machine..
.. just being someone who functions outside the rules—that's the threat.. .. even the mere idea that a person can live without that structure is a threat to the establishment—if people actually believed it..
.. that's the point.. the fact that he didn't give a damn about the system is exactly what broke it.. .. for crying out loud.. you totally missed the entire premise.. (.. again.. for the millionth time..)
He’s only considered an anarchist by those who still cling to being part of the establishment... because to truly be an anarchist, one has to operate from within the system itself. In other words, someone calling themselves an anarchist is actually working inside the machine—tearing it down using its own tools, rather than utilizing methods that exist entirely outside its reach.
Now, Jesus operates entirely outside of the system; he can't even call himself an anarchist, since he isn't even concerned with the status quo—to him, that whole structure is just a world of "living dead."
Consequently, following Jesus's path doesn't necessarily mean you're an anarchist. If you are walking that path, it’s simply the way... but if you aren't, then perhaps you could call it anarchic....
You’re really going in circles here... would you honestly advise every priest out there to just quit their "day jobs" and pivot to day trading stocks—since that’s apparently what you consider actual work?
Brenda Cook4 said:Oh boy... honestly, does anyone out there have a better deal than them? I mean, come on, they aren't paying a dime for anything yet, but they're selling it at top dollar and walking away clean. Where else in the galaxy can you find a business model like that? It's unreal...
But you dodged the actual question; they ought to be generating value for themselves—would you truly characterize high-stakes stock manipulation as legitimate work? And tell me, do these speculators actually risk their own capital, or are they just playing with everyone else's money?
Joshua Hernandez9 said:... so he wrote it... his entire first post is basically just about that—about what needs adding...
(.. his whole opening bit covers that half of the story that gets systematically denied, hidden, and trashed.. by the neighbors.. all just to keep those neighbors happy..)
... and the question of "how".. .. he's been chewing on it for years.. (.. even if he hasn't tied it back to Jesus yet).. .. and it runs through pretty much everything he writes..
.. just try picking ten random posts from different threads.. and you'll see he's always circling back to the "how"..
(.. I remember my high school sociology teacher--absolute genius.. I remember him because he'd say: "if you have five solid arguments, don't reach for a sixth one that doesn't hold water." .. among other things.. .. hardly anyone listened to him.. barely anyone even remembered what he said.. there was a class reunion a few years back, and based on that, it seems like maybe only a couple of us actually paid attention..
.. and this was his style.. he'd walk into class and we'd just start talking.. .. then the next class, he'd ask: "what did we cover last time?" and most kids would just start yelling: "we didn't learn anything last time!" .. "what do you mean nothing?" he'd ask.. .. and the crowd would go: "nothing.. we just talked.."
.. but for me.. he's where I learned the most interesting stuff..)
To be labeled an anarchist—is that really what we're calling him? Those who crucified him did so precisely because they viewed him as an anarchist, a threat to the established order—though they were fundamentally mistaken—it wasn't that he wanted to tear the system down; it was simply that the system held no interest for him... he never identified as an anarchist, nor did he seek to operate within those structures at all...
redtinker36 said:.. well .. I don't think they'd see eye to eye anymore .. .. what I’m getting at is .. that .. now .. we can build upon the teachings of Jesus .. and continue following his path ..
But how would that actually look in practice—how does one go about "building upon" it?
The modern clergy has effectively regressed to the status of the Pharisees during the era of Jesus—to the point where, based on what they stand to lose... voluntarily relinquishing that position would feel less like a career change and more like suicide.
That said, such a sweeping generalization doesn't offer much of a true perspective; it’s far too superficial...
No, I didn't get that wrong—not by a long shot... When I say "partially," I mean we're talking about a journey that never actually ends. Those people who would be satisfied with just a fragment of the truth—who stop halfway and then go around acting like they've grasped the whole thing—well, their actions would stem from a complete lack of understanding of Jesus (since you’re likely referring to those who carry His name on their lips while their minds are elsewhere).
For instance, Marx felt for the proletariat much the way Jesus felt for the downtrodden...
Understanding Jesus' philosophy isn't exactly a walk in the park—it’s not something you can just study from a distance. You have to actually live it, to be part of Him, if you ever hope to truly grasp it. One really ought to labor alongside Jesus to earn those same kinds of callouses...
People tend to cherry-pick what suits them, accepting only the bits and pieces that align with their own views—yet, they have absolutely no desire to be even partially aligned with Jesus. For most, "ignorance" serves as a convenient little excuse for why they don't get it, but when it comes to the sheer unwillingness to even try? Well, there’s no excuse for that...
There’s an old proverb—I believe it's Japanese in origin—that suggests it is far better to turn back to the starting line when you realize you're on the wrong path, rather than stubbornly pressing on until the very end... many people convince themselves they've traveled too far to turn around now, feeling the sunk cost is just too high—but in reality, it always pays to backtrack from a mistake if you want to spend the rest of your life doing things right...
After all, you can't truly experience a fresh start without first retreating—whether that means settling an old debt or simply shedding your outdated skin... they say you can't pour new wine into old wineskins, but then again, they clearly never had the benefit of modern recycling programs or those glass bottles with the deposit returns.
redtinker36 said:.. I have to say this again.. what’s the core of my argument here?
.. It’s based on the idea that a person isn't truly alive.. they just exist..
.. It’s based on the fact that there’s a social world—a consensus among people.. .. And the fact that behind that world lies another one—a world of lies—peering out from everyone.. This isn't just some conspiracy theory..
.. Once a person.. realizes their actual place.. they see that.. if everything goes according to plan.. they're screwed.. .. That's why they perform miracles—trying to patch up their true standing with any illusion they can find.. They call love God.. but individuality remains a distant dream, because they are nobody and nothing..
.. The only real way out is.. to stop fighting.. and consistent surrender means death..
.. Let me try once more.. more concisely..
1 .. The neighborhood surrounding you is predatory.. and you are merely prey to it..
2 .. If you engage in a fight with that neighborhood.. you've done exactly what the enemy wants..
3 .. But there is a chance for victory.. and that chance lies in refusing to fight..
.. One more time..
1 .. A person isn't alive.. they simply exist.. 2 .. Up until now, they lived within the neighborhood.. 3 .. That was until now..
(.. I wrote that down quite well.. it’s a system of teamwork—you repeat it.. constantly repeat it.. that’s how you build a scheme.. something piercing.. something clear.. and that’s where people fall apart.. I know.. I've been there.. .. I don't know.. personally, I think this is ugly enough that there's no reason to delete it.. so whatever.. this is just for me, and I really like it.. )
Religions have been built upon those very foundations since the beginning of time... In any case, while it is never technically too late, one should ideally realize they need to quit sooner rather than later—that way, you can spend more time watching the struggle of the living with a single, fearless perspective (those who remain blissfully unaware that they are actually dying precisely because of that very struggle). And that is the true, functional form of suicide, whereas the second type of suicide is simply giving up in the sense of a strategic retreat—and a strategic retreat, after all, remains a legitimate part of combat tactics.
Bon-ton represents an informal set of social graces—essentially a guide to ensuring our daily interactions remain seamless and polite... it evolves naturally from the practical realities of human connection... its core mission is to foster a sense of community by prioritizing the collective good over individual whims, among other things. Those who fail to observe these unspoken rules won't find themselves facing a judge in a courtroom, but they might very well face the quiet judgment of their peers—being labeled as unrefined or simply lacking class.
Furthermore, etiquette is a living thing; it shifts alongside a society that is constantly evolving—meaning certain protocols that seemed vital yesterday might lose their relevance or vanish entirely today. There has always been a certain outcry whenever these standards are breached—though, if you think about it, that very backlash is actually a testament to how much those rules still matter, rather than a sign that they’ve become obsolete.
In my view, however, one of the primary reasons why the sense of duty toward these social graces is eroding is the rise of a modern movement—almost a crusade, really—that champions individual rights and self-interest at the direct expense of the community's needs. It brings to mind that persistent, ubiquitous slogan we see everywhere: "Because you're worth it"...
redtinker36 said:.. regarding Maya, everything is clear—there aren't really any issues there..
.. as for ideology, I’ve completely botched it.. I used a term I don't normally use—and frankly, I think I used it poorly.. .. eventually—once I can sort through my thoughts—it might actually be useful.. .. but right now, I’m lost on what the right approach is—so I'm dropping the term.. or rather.. admitting I don't truly grasp its meaning..
.. what I was trying to convey regarding the individual versus the system—versus the neighborhood—is this.. .. it's just like love.. precisely the same thing.. .. there exists a world of hatred, and then there is another world.. one that strives to balance out that hatred.. a world of love.. .. that second world is somewhat illusory—a dream of a different kind of existence.. the reason figures like Mother Teresa or Jesus Christ matter so much is simply because the world of hatred is so overwhelming--so pervasive..
.. the same applies to the individual within their community.. the individual has become such a non-entity that being told they have value is a matter of survival.. they need that sense of purpose—that illusion—like water.. mainly because deep down, they know they are nothing.. .. but that's exactly what paves the way for anarchy—because a person won't be able to endure that void.. that feeling of being nothing..
.. the same pattern will play out further down the line.. when it comes to truth..
.. my interest lies in reality.. as for what I would call "ideology".. I honestly don't know..
.. but more importantly.. where does a person stand when they find themselves alone against the system?.. what can they realistically expect?.. .. Maya did that—she's likely hoping for some kind of result.. .. whereas, well.. look at what I've done..
To my mind, the perspective is different, and the implications are fundamentally distinct; love and hate occupy the same pole, whereas the true opposite is indifference. Balance isn't found in the ratio between love and hate, but rather in the tension between love and indifference—just as it is between hate and indifference—meaning any equilibrium requires a specific, balancing dose of indifference alongside both love and hate.....
redtinker36 said:.. don't hold anything against him... he isn't to blame... he simply has nothing to offer...
.. about a month or two ago... there was this story in the papers... we live close enough to the area that I could check things out with people you might know... .. somewhere near a small town in the Midwest... there's this facility for people... well, those with mental health issues... .. a young woman arrived—a psychologist—and she was kicked out... basically because she wouldn't just play along...
.. during her short time there—maybe six months—she saw some irregularities... .. but... well, she actually saw them... .. it was in the news... a local paper covered it for two whole pages, plus a few smaller bits here and there... .. when the coverage was peaking, I read it. Afterward, everyone was talking about it. It felt like everyone knew what was going on—everyone except me, though I'm not exactly a news junkie... .. the director of the facility is tied to the Republican Party... she was key during the construction phase, and now she runs that place like her own private backyard. You don't touch a thing... .. probably because of how it was built. If she weren't backed by the GOP—if she didn't have those political connections—well, she'd probably think she's untouchable... .. as if some idealistic newcomer could actually take her down... .. it's just not happening... not even as a joke...
.. regarding the complaints against the director...
.. first... all these inconsistencies. Like how they only keep the elderly residents there, even though it's meant for the mentally ill... and cutting corners on medication and things like that... .. honestly... the guy who was involved in the construction project now has certain interests... he has an elderly relative who needs a home... and, well...
.. and then there's the workplace harassment... .. "harassment" is such a polite word. In a more blunt sense, it's psychological warfare—the kind of soul-crushing pressure that leaves a victim completely spent... .. there were some nurses who wanted to speak up, but even from their small accounts, it was pretty clear... .. one quit and is now unemployed... another moved far away for work... and she didn't do it because she thought it would be better there... .. one nurse said being around the director is like being with Mother Teresa, but once she leaves, you feel like you've just stepped out of a vampire's feast... .. after that, people were commenting on it, and the vibe really matched what was in the article. It also gave the impression that everyone knows the truth, yet nobody can do anything about it...
.. which puts that young woman who wrote the piece in a tough spot... .. she finished her schooling, she's an intellectual, she worked there for six months... she likely has some self-confidence and doesn't believe she messed up anything... .. she wants society to set rules and actually follow them... .. she found someone to write it up—some journalist—who probably just wants the fame. He's promising to expose everything to the world, hoping for his moment in the spotlight... .. the girl thinks she's going to move the state and the courts, while the journalist isn't risking a single thing...
.. but what can a young person like her actually achieve? .. only if someone else takes up her cause—say, a group like the Democrats... .. if everything she said turned out to be true, it would give them political points. They'd say, "Look, we won't allow this kind of thing in our state." For instance, a politician from Chicago might be quite vocal about it... .. why wouldn't they side with her? .. because they have other priorities. They can't afford to get bogged down in the details. Plus, for another reason... these political parties are like little fiefdoms. Each has its own institutions, each pays its own dues, and there's a balance between them that, frankly, shouldn't be disturbed... .. even when they do make noise, it's usually just about the spectacle—the shouting and the commotion—rather than any real attempt to fix anything...
.. the result of a story like this can be this... .. she can either find a way to align herself with a larger interest, or she'll end up on the street like some fool who tried to investigate whether a high-ranking official was embezzling funds... .. if anyone is willing to take her under their wing, she'll have to show her gratitude...
.. and... well... anarchy. How does one interpret anarchy? .. like this...
.. there is no social contract... no organized society... no rules or laws that actually apply to people, upon which a person like her could rely when she believes a process or an action needs to be regulated...
.. for instance .. Štef uses TV broadcasts to claim there was a theft at the truck depot .. he’s just hoping some local authority hears him and actually does something .. he's .. well .. the essence of absurdity .. on national television he's suggesting .. to the Department of Justice .. that regarding the murder of his buddy Pukanić .. they should interrogate his wife .. who is mentally unstable .. and who apparently called him privately .. so that he might call Pukanić privately .. asking if he'd be willing to give her some cash .. .. and Štef is the President of the United States .. so you can see where his head is at ..
.. basically .. a regular person can't count on the courts or the Constitution .. if they do .. they're going to get screwed ..
.. if she wants to survive .. she has to rely on some kind of street smarts ..
.. and another thing .. a person can't rely on .. the opinion of the average guy .. the reader, let's say .. because that man is totally broken .. stuck in a mouse hole .. barely managing to breathe .. and even then, he has to do it carefully .. .. those nurses who left .. they know this .. just as well as everyone else in the South .. it's impossible .. and you're just out of luck ..
.. the suggestion .. "fight for your rights" .. is a pretty damn terrible suggestion at first .. people lose their minds over it .. because they interpret it as just being told to go screw themselves .. .. I'm sure both Sanders and Jakovčić would give her that same advice ..
.. but .. that advice isn't entirely foolish .. at a different point in time .. when anarchy can be brought into play ..
.. I should also mention the man himself .. about the time I realized that only an idiot keeps walking that way .. it's not a path people rarely take .. it's a path people shouldn't take .. even though it's right there .. even though the priests and ministers advocate for it at every holiday gathering ..
I am preoccupied with a different angle here: did the intern actually follow protocol? Because, at its core, anarchy is simply the refusal to respect established procedures... Perhaps she is merely being pedantic, acting high and mighty, or perhaps she's just being unyieldingly stubborn...
redtinker36 said:.. damn it .. I'll never be able to write anything like that ..
.. but damn .. that’s just anarchy .. meaning .. what I think regarding John and those old shamans .. you guys are saying .. is just meaningless nonsense .. .. and I'm perfectly fine .. with you all thinking the same about my own speech ..
.. anarchy is how I carry myself toward another person .. assuming I am a human being .. and holding onto the right .. to clean up today .. just as I did yesterday .. truth be told ..
.. about John .. .. there were others .. I remember him and the soup .. equally good .. but John was the intellectual brotherly figure ..
.. this .. he doesn't matter at all .. I don't get it .. are you trying to say he's just some local nobody .. and that's why you bring him up .. ?
.. and damn .. while they were singing and mocking .. they were looking further ahead into the politics of slaughter ..
.. and then there were the third parties .. the ones who actually had to work so the singers and the butchers could eat .. .. the story of anarchy is really the story of those third parties ..
.. songs live on a single sensation .. on a single tone .. that is art .. they create .. an atmosphere .. an emotional state .. .. we could talk about that forever .. but I've already said too much .. so I'm bored of it ..
---
.. yeah .. I could have put this on a blog .. or somewhere else .. but I wanted it here .. damn it .. that's why I posted it here ..
.. does what you're saying imply a tone of .. "we let you in, so you should be grateful" .. ?
.. you enter a house by clicking and walking in .. and once you're in, you're in .. whoever wants to come in does .. whoever doesn't stays outside ..
.. so what, you're saying the noise from my house was bothering the neighborhood .. ? .. there could be several explanations for that .. a few come to mind .. maybe .. some bad ones .. but also .. some .. quite good ones ..
.. anarchy is .. this ..
.. there is a neighborhood .. and there is a house .. the neighborhood sets all the rules for how a house can be built .. but the one building the house has to accept that if necessary .. he might have to sell his soul .. .. you can follow every rule and still find it isn't enough .. he has to be with the neighborhood in his heart .. .. the neighborhood's love for him is massive .. but they demand it be returned .. .. they don't ask for it clearly or distinctly .. they just demand that you be one of us .. they want your blood ..
.. it's the same situation with Americans .. they love and help the whole world .. but if that love isn't reciprocated, they bomb them ..
---
.. listen kid .. I feel like this is my house .. and you're getting on my nerves here .. but what can I do .. I like you .. for certain .. sportsmanlike reasons .. .. and I endure it .. following the rules of the neighborhood ..
Johnny isn't an outsider because he lacks substance; he lacks substance because he is an outsider.
That’s what happens when you step outside the circle of common understanding... It doesn't necessarily mean people understood him before, but back then, he was embraced as this mystical, enigmatic, philosophical figure—which, let's face it, adds a certain charm when you're dealing with rebellious music, especially during those politically and culturally charged eras. Why he chose to leave? That's irrelevant... What matters is that he was ultimately held accountable for this secondary form of rebellion—the one directed toward his own audience.
Edward Flores4 said:So, that’s basically the definition of anarchy straight out of some Cold War-era edition of Mickey Mouse—or did you just pull that one out of thin air yourself?
Something about this just doesn't sit right with me...
Noam Chomsky is an American. He’s essentially the ultimate polymath—a linguist, a philosopher, a cognitive scientist, a political activist, an author, and a lecturer all rolled into one. He is an institute Professor emeritus and professor emeritus of linguistics AT The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as one of the fathers of modern linguistics. Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as one of the fathers of modern linguistics. Ever since the 1960s rolled around, his reputation has really expanded—he’s become much more widely recognized as a... Think of him this way—he’s not just your average political critic; he’s more like a true anarchist, a dissident through and through, and a dedicated intellectual within the realm of libertarian socialism.
Back when *The Atlantic* put together that 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll, Noam Chomsky actually took the top spot as the world's leading living public intellectual—which is pretty wild to think about if you consider how much noise there is out there today. Then, just a year later, *The New Yorker* released their own list, and he landed at number seven on their "Heroes of Our Time" lineup. It’s interesting to see those kinds of recognitions stick around, even decades later.
It’s honestly a killer combination—I mean, think about it. You have a linguist, a philosopher, a cognitive scientist, all rolled into one, plus a political activist, a dissident, and an anarchist. It's quite the profile. On top of all that, he’s out there giving dozens of lectures every year all over the world—usually to packed houses, too—and holds honorary chairs at MIT.
We’re talking about a guy who honestly writes books faster than most people can even finish reading them—and if I remember my count correctly, he’s already put out over 110 of them.
And then you have the nerve to tell me that this guy is winning over audiences and intellectuals all over the globe just by reciting:
To me, anarchy isn't just some chaotic free-for-all—it’s actually a specific idea about tearing down the established balance between our individual rights and our duties to one another. It’s essentially an attempt to maximize personal freedom by pushing individual rights to the absolute limit, even if that means completely ignoring our responsibilities to the rest of society. In a way, you could look at anarchy as a different kind of tyranny—not the old-school kind where a single dictator rules over everyone, but rather a situation where the whims and desires of certain individuals end up tyrannizing the collective whole. It’s the flip side of the coin when it comes to power.
Whenever I sit down to listen to him, I’m always struck by how much he talks about taking personal responsibility—all while pointing out the blatant hypocrisy that seems to be baked into our society. It’s wild, really. He describes himself as an anarchist, and his main gripe is that intellectuals have consistently failed us. He argues that they’ve essentially sold out their own brilliance to the most incompetent people in power, trading long-term stability for some quick, short-term gain. It's a classic case of selling out the future just to win the moment.
Anyway... I don't want to make it sound like his opinion carries more weight than yours—it's not like he’s some world-renowned political critic or a legendary scientist with global fame or anything.
It doesn't really matter—honestly, it’s not even worth sweating the fact that you aren't familiar with him—because at the end of the day, people generally only care about what actually interests them. But you always run into those folks who act like they’re experts on everything, even though it’s painfully obvious they haven't spent a single second actually looking into what anarchy is all about. Instead, they just want to make sure they leave "some kind of" impression on "someone," so they drop these completely baseless, unresearched, and shallow comments that are poorly phrased and purely judgmental. It's just noise, really.
And that’s exactly where you run into trouble—it's your personal tragedy, really. You spend all your time drifting through these "intellectual online circles," and sure, you're more than capable of Googling what anarchy actually means, but you’re just too stuck in your own ways. You're so convinced you're right, so wrapped up in your own biases and snap judgments, and—let's be honest here—just a bit too lazy to actually sit down, read the whole thread, or even bother looking up a single term. Yet, despite that, you're incredibly quick to label those rare, genuinely valuable people who stand up for your own rights as nothing more than half-maniacal, destructive, and chaotic tyrants.
Congrats... it’s honestly pretty rare to see someone pull off such a total intellectual suicide—all by accident, mind you—in just two poorly constructed sentences that lack any real purpose or direction... it feels like pure exhibitionism at this point 😉
I hope Noam Chomsky won't take offense at my reading... but honestly, those types of intellectuals felt a sense of duty, so they grabbed whatever was up for grabs—for themselves and for their tiny inner circles—which, if you think about it, really just highlights their true capability...
But then again, that kind of "capability" requires a vast sea of people willing to hand over exactly what these types want to seize—even when it's taken by force. If we're talking about the survival and continued success of humanity, the more important group isn't the grabbers, but rather the masses who simply yielded to those wielding power. Because if every single person had decided to be equally "responsible" and "take matters into their own hands," there wouldn't be a world left to speak of. It is precisely that accommodating mass of people that provides the only real hope for our species' survival...
A social contract is inherently restrictive to individual liberty—that is to say, every such agreement inevitably produces - personal rights, representing the maximum degree of freedom guaranteed by society, and - personal obligations (imposed via that social contract), serving as the theoretical minimum of constraints.
Anarchy is essentially the concept of dismantling established relationships between individual rights and duties—it seeks to maximize the affirmation of personal rights at the expense of one's obligations to the collective. In truth, anarchy is nothing more than the tyranny of the individual members of society over the society itself; it is merely the inverse of a single ruler’s tyranny over the people. Both forms of tyranny represent a fundamental societal imbalance between rights and responsibilities—the former because it dissolves the obligations of the individual, while the latter does so by dissolving the obligations of the leader.
Anarchism, then, functions as an ideological movement of individuals whose only possible "social contract" is built upon the shared goal of tearing down the existing order—regardless of what that order might currently be. However, once the old structure is leveled, anarchism cannot establish any new social contract without imposing at least some level of personal obligation upon the individual... which means it can only ever exist as a reaction. Theoretically speaking, if anarchism were ever to become the dominant social contract, it would ultimately strive toward its own dissolution.
True social cohesion, on the other hand, is rooted in the voluntary assumption of social duties and the self-limitation of one's own rights. Cohesion cannot be forced from above; it can only exist when it is free and willing. The freest possible society is one where the collective assumes the burden of the individual's obligations, thereby granting the individual the greatest possible latitude....
redtinker36 said:.. it’s not the same thing... you can hide behind words, certainly... but you can also reveal quite a lot through them..
.. and it’s true... you just have to look at where someone stands... that’s how you know them... people occupy the roles they were meant for—if someone belongs in a mob boss's seat, they'll be there... if someone is a bottom-feeder, that's where they'll end up...
.. I don't think John was anything special... he was just one of those minor gurus you see by the thousands in the newspapers these days... .. the idea that he didn't want to state his position to anyone... well, do you see the contradiction in what you're saying? .. the old federal system was a godsend for those revolutionaries... it functioned like a self-governing community... the list of total losers who managed to climb into high positions is unbelievable... being against that entire structure was easy... and safe... .. but now what? Tear it down... throw it all in the trash... and then what? .. What should John say now? That maybe he actually loved that old union? That it felt like home? Do you really think that's impossible? .. that sentiment is becoming more common... kids who grew up in the heart of the old system, hating it—even though it provided for them—are now remembering that the old era wasn't all bad... I find the people from the Midwest particularly interesting in that regard...
.. using John as an ideological example is like using a pop star... .. he might explain a lot of things... but it's certain that the important parts will remain hidden...
.. which means I spent a year writing whatever I wanted without anyone bothering me... .. does that imply there was a lot in those writings that shouldn't have been said... or perhaps should have been erased? .. well... you were the moderator... .. Anarchy says—what is written, I wrote, and that is my responsibility... but allowing it to be published—that is your responsibility... .. damn it... the idea that "I wrote whatever I wanted" is equally questionable... It seems I was removed because I'm better suited for spirituality...
.. but alright... that doesn't matter... .. To understand anarchy, in my view... you need more than that... .. One of the points is this...
.. The current regime... the existing social order within both large and small states... are the relationships between people actually in balance? .. Is this democracy—supposedly the best way to organize human relations—actually sound and sustainable?
.. Suddenly, I'm left thinking about three types of balance... stable, volatile, and indifferent...
.. Otherwise... the heart of anarchy is this... .. On one hand, you have society acting like a hive... providing a person with rights and duties... binding them through thousands of interpersonal connections... giving them many great things, sure... like the ability to survive... but also some worse ones... .. Or you have the individual... who, for starters... just wants to know which of those connections are worth accepting...
What you're saying is completely off base... Johnny has zero influence, which is exactly why he's an outsider. If he actually mattered, you'd have real material for your analysis about how he compares to this guy or that guy. As it stands, Johnny hasn't given anyone—not even you or me—any actual substance to work with.
Being an opponent back then was simple and consequence-free... while the people singing songs and mocking the system, the real power players pulling the strings, crossed that bridge a long time ago by looking ahead toward the politics of division and dismantling, leaving these anarchists to end up looking like nothing more than hopeless romantics....