Let's talk ideology and anarchy...

.. I want to... here we go... talk about ideology versus anarchy..

.. Let's start by establishing a baseline.. Ideology is essentially a collection of thoughts, ideas, and stances—everything coming together to form a single, coherent concept.. a structured system..
.. Take communism, or even the Third Reich, or Catholicism.. they function as sets of interconnected beliefs and ideas. From those core tenets, organization emerges—people being gathered and funneled into a specific circle.. almost like being packed into a single vessel..

.. On the other hand.. consider anarchy as a fundamental human drive.. the refusal to acknowledge one man's authority over another..
.. This isn't about rejecting truth or dismissing all authority entirely. It’s about personal agency—acting only upon what one has consciously accepted. If someone believes a certain path is right, or if they believe someone else possesses knowledge, or even if they feel compelled by necessity—but they choose to accept that reality through their own reasoning.. it's a matter of *amor fati*..
.. That distinction is vital—accepting authority, even over oneself, provided you truly understand why..

.. My philosophical stance—the one I'm advocating here—is this..

.. A person isn't lost simply because they have to follow a rule. A person becomes a mindless drone when those rules transform into divine commandments—when they become part of an ideology or a concept that they can no longer, or perhaps dare not, question..

.. Sometimes, those in power do this just because they can..
.. Which basically means..
.. It's like some bully in a back alley who doesn't actually care about the fight, he just wants to flex his muscles and show everyone how much power he holds..

.. When looking at the utility of ideology from two different perspectives, the results are... distinct..

.. Regimes use ideology to stifle thought while it's still in its infancy..
.. They claim, "these rules are our foundation; they must be respected. We are a civilized society, and that is non-negotiable." We can discuss them, we can change them, and then we move forward..
.. One has to notice that democracy can function similarly to the Third Reich—specifically at the moment it successfully traps its citizens within a rigid cage of rules..

.. For anarchists, however, this ideology becomes a tool of its own. As a regime grows older and more authoritarian, it accumulates more rules—typically bureaucratic ones—that lack logic and common sense. These rules eventually become so nonsensical that they are incredibly easy to identify..
.. In that way, the madness of the ideology and the madness of the regime actually become an advantage for anarchy..

.. Furthermore..

.. A person becomes.. a creature of the regime..
.. You shouldn't say he "accepted" it; you should say he "became" it..
.. He is now living out a different mode of existence.. inhabiting that ideology..

I’m not quite buying it—anarchism is a formal ideology, anarchy is just a concept, and an anarchist is someone who actually adheres to the doctrine... the person you're describing sounds more like a mere outsider. An outsider stands against ideologies themselves—essentially, one individual positioned entirely against the group...

People can be so incredibly different from one another, it’s wild
and they really do
it's what someone chooses—well, actually, it isn't even a choice, it's just... baked into who they are
most people just have this deep-seated urge to dominate others
to control absolutely anything and everything they can get their hands on

true anarchy? that's something only a few individuals carry inside them
they're just born that way
just like how some people are simply born to follow orders

Jonathan Brooks8 said:I’m not quite buying it—anarchism is a formal ideology, anarchy is just a concept, and an anarchist is someone who actually adheres to the doctrine... the person you're describing sounds more like a mere outsider. An outsider stands against ideologies themselves—essentially, one individual positioned entirely against the group...

I guess you could say the same thing about being an outsider. There’s actually a whole ideology centered on being an outsider, especially when it's pushed through art: think rock music (punk, Bruce Springsteen, Lou Reed, etc.), or movies (those Clint Eastwood westerns, for example). Even the big archetypal figures that shape the identity of the West have that outsider vibe: Jesus was an outsider among the Jews, Socrates among the Athenians, and Galileo among the Christians. So, an "outsider ideology" isn't just possible—it’s actually super widespread (maybe even foundational to the West).

I mean, a person can't really escape ideology as long as they have something to communicate—basically, as long as they're speaking. Because whatever they say (if they say anything at all) consists of ideas, of *logos*. You can only really rise above some ideology by understanding its terms, by grasping why it's necessary for someone in the first place. Honestly, if someone thinks an ideology is totally pointless, maybe they just haven't understood it yet—because if it were truly meaningless, it wouldn't be so successful. It's more about rising above it rather than escaping it entirely.

.. anarchy might be considered an ideology -- I don't know much about it, honestly -- but I tend to stick to one approach... that you can slowly pull yourself away from any ideology you know... or any group you belong to...
.. during that process, you have to accept all sorts of things... binding yourself again... in different ways...
.. but you can always keep one thing in mind: your ultimate goal is to pull yourself back toward yourself... toward your own core...
.. that doesn't mean you have to write everyone else off -- that isn't really possible -- but it means if you can become even a millimeter freer, you take it. Because you know that’s the point...

.. I wouldn't say humans have a natural craving to be enslaved... but it's precisely that enslavement... or belonging to a specific circle... that secures one's survival...
.. and there's always that catch... the tighter the circle, the worse the curse when you finally try to leave it...
.. I'd argue that a spark—a dream of freedom—exists in everyone... and people actually spend far more energy trying to kill that spark than they do trying to fan it into a flame...

.. every circle, every ideology, has its period of birth, development, and death...
.. democracy is certainly a highly developed ideology, and I don't think there is a true ideology capable of replacing it...
.. I don't think there are enough... knots of ideas and thoughts... logical enough to tie themselves together... to unite people into a new collective...
.. I believe the destiny of man is... man himself...

.. but... what I actually meant was this...
.. I just felt like talking... so I started talking... which usually leads to arguing, which then gets me kicked out, and that's fine...
.. I wanted to talk... it feels like philosophy, but my interest would fade quickly, so I'd move to anarchy, and eventually... maybe even to Papa Wojtyła...
.. I said I "felt like talking" because I wanted to feel at home somewhere. Whoever wants to open up can talk, or argue... and if they don't want to, they owe no one anything...
.. but the system won't allow it. The moderators feel they need to "guide" me—as if I shouldn't be given that freedom. I remember... last time, the question was whether I was even cut out for philosophy...
.. let's assume those are the rules, and that they are right in some sense...

.. the question I'm asking myself is this...

.. first... is the ideology setting the rule reliable enough? What is it built upon? It could be based on an organization with its own questionable motives—whether through ignorance or malice...
.. second... can some completely insignificant rule shape me... turn me into a member who eventually loses the ability to see even the most obvious truths... like the fact that Hitler was burning millions of people in camps...

See, this just proves that most of them have a looting mentality deep down
when even stuff like this gets under their skin, they immediately want to step in and micromanage who does what

and honestly, if some dictator popped up again tomorrow, we’d be right back where we started
people would just blindly follow the rules

.. everything.. even literally.. material things.. I believe they require constant new energy to exist.. nothing can truly exist in total isolation..

.. it’s like a river.. it needs a constant influx of water.. otherwise, it dies..

.. ideology works the same way..
.. it draws its lifeblood from the establishment.. when a moderator takes on.. the responsibility.. for any kind of distribution or redistribution.. they are always counting on that stability..
.. for instance.. the very process itself becomes ideological.. because democracy in this context is both a confirmation and a challenge.. it keeps everything within the democratic framework..
.. practically speaking.. what doesn't fit is the individual.. and that individual becomes increasingly out of place the more they stay silent.. which is essentially anarchy..
.. someone might conclude there's no point in speaking up.. the establishment boasts about how they handled some minor anarchist.. but a seed of doubt remains in the establishment's mind.. they know they had to expend effort just to survive.. and.. crucially.. they have etched that mechanism--that survival instinct--into their own minds.. now, everyone has to fear that same mechanism.. that ideological.. mindset..
.. something much more extreme than a forum.. say.. we call it the FBI.. you constantly find yourself wondering if someone remembered a word you said, and if that one word will be enough to get you sent to Alcatraz..

.. people experience this differently.. everyone is more or less immune to certain things..
.. I’ve seen instances of posts being deleted.. or moved away from here.. unrelated to my own posts.. yet it immediately made me nervous.. I felt this sudden tightness in my chest..

.. that situation ties back to what Marx calls alienated labor.. something is written as something created.. and a person experiences that work as an extension of themselves.. when someone else takes that and uses it as a weapon.. it feels to the creator like they are being dragged and beaten around their own neighborhood with their own creation..

.. but.. well.. not everyone feels it with the same intensity..

.. looking at it from an energetic standpoint.. it seems like anarchy is hard to sustain.. as if a person simply cannot muster enough strength to behave that way..
.. but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case..
.. you can save quite a bit of energy on certain things..
.. still.. damn it.. proper dosage is the real essence.. accepting that you simply cannot.. where you cannot.. is the only sensible path..

redtinker36 said:.. anarchy might be considered an ideology -- I don't know much about it, honestly -- but I tend to stick to one approach... that you can slowly pull yourself away from any ideology you know... or any group you belong to...
.. during that process, you have to accept all sorts of things... binding yourself again... in different ways...
.. but you can always keep one thing in mind: your ultimate goal is to pull yourself back toward yourself... toward your own core...
.. that doesn't mean you have to write everyone else off -- that isn't really possible -- but it means if you can become even a millimeter freer, you take it. Because you know that’s the point...

.. I wouldn't say humans have a natural craving to be enslaved... but it's precisely that enslavement... or belonging to a specific circle... that secures one's survival...
.. and there's always that catch... the tighter the circle, the worse the curse when you finally try to leave it...
.. I'd argue that a spark—a dream of freedom—exists in everyone... and people actually spend far more energy trying to kill that spark than they do trying to fan it into a flame...

.. every circle, every ideology, has its period of birth, development, and death...
.. democracy is certainly a highly developed ideology, and I don't think there is a true ideology capable of replacing it...
.. I don't think there are enough... knots of ideas and thoughts... logical enough to tie themselves together... to unite people into a new collective...
.. I believe the destiny of man is... man himself...

.. but... what I actually meant was this...
.. I just felt like talking... so I started talking... which usually leads to arguing, which then gets me kicked out, and that's fine...
.. I wanted to talk... it feels like philosophy, but my interest would fade quickly, so I'd move to anarchy, and eventually... maybe even to Papa Wojtyła...
.. I said I "felt like talking" because I wanted to feel at home somewhere. Whoever wants to open up can talk, or argue... and if they don't want to, they owe no one anything...
.. but the system won't allow it. The moderators feel they need to "guide" me—as if I shouldn't be given that freedom. I remember... last time, the question was whether I was even cut out for philosophy...
.. let's assume those are the rules, and that they are right in some sense...

.. the question I'm asking myself is this...

.. first... is the ideology setting the rule reliable enough? What is it built upon? It could be based on an organization with its own questionable motives—whether through ignorance or malice...
.. second... can some completely insignificant rule shape me... turn me into a member who eventually loses the ability to see even the most obvious truths... like the fact that Hitler was burning millions of people in camps...

It’s possible to miss the obvious because someone is blindly following a group, sure, but it’s also possible because people don't have mirrors to see themselves. So, they can't see things about themselves that everyone else sees clearly. That goes for everyone—we all struggle to see ourselves. But other people can act as a mirror. Other people aren't just a danger of getting sucked into a crowd (though they are), they're also a chance to take a look at ourselves (even if that mirror is a bit distorted). Every experience is a test—and meeting other people is definitely one of those tests.

For example, when you say ".. I remember .." — in my mirror, it looks like your memory is a little fuzzy. Like you forgot that just a year or so ago, you were writing whatever you wanted, however you wanted, without anyone bothering you. I think you missed asking one thing: how did the system leave me alone for that whole year or more? Just looking at it as a phenomenon, not as a matter of guilt or credit—why did the system stay away from you for so long? Because if your clash with the system is something inevitable due to how the system works, then it makes no sense that they left you alone for that long. If you asked that, you'd naturally follow up with why did that situation change? Then it might be clearer to see if "they are right" and in what way.

Because there are people who honestly thrive when the system is against them. It makes them feel stronger in their own eyes— "I'm standing up against all of them." It makes them feel more righteous— "everyone who ever mattered in history was persecuted by the system." But those kinds of people are totally dependent on the system: without a system to fight against, they wouldn't have any strength or value at all.
Whether you fall into that category, I don't know. But there's no doubt some of your readers do.

that thing you mentioned about how people carry this little spark of freedom inside them, only to spend half their lives working overtime to snuff it out
I mean, I think you're totally right on the money here
Seriously, if you just sit back and look at the difference between kids and adults, it’s pretty damn obvious, isn't it?

nobody else;
Bruce Springsteen is a perfect case study—though before I dive in, I should clarify that there is a vital distinction between ideology and being an outsider. To have an ideology, you need at least two people: the originator and the follower who adheres to that vision. Being an outsider, however, doesn't require anyone to be standing by your side for that label to stick. Of course, an ideology can itself be an outsider movement—a rebel among ideologies—but that’s a different conversation entirely.

Johnny was a rebel against the establishment. Rockers, by their very nature, emerged as rebels against prevailing musical trends and the systemic machinery that supports them (by listening to, supporting, and essentially paying for that very machine)... with the added layer that Johnny was playing during the era of Punk, which functions as a political and ideological stance rooted in anarchism.
That was the era of the American "New Wave," a time when rockers from across the US used their music to mock committee-driven politics, the established system, and its core values—acting as a specific branch within the broader world of modern punk anarchism.
Johnny was the cherry on top of the New Wave sundae—the avant-garde, its most valuable export. In that sense, he wasn't really an outsider; he was politically lucid and possessed the sheer power to steer a massive fanbase in whatever direction he chose. Up until a certain point, he was an ideological anarchist simply by exposing the dirty underside of the ruling status quo. But the seed of true outsiderhood lies in his refusal to accept the "offer."
That seed remains visible even today—he lives a settled life, married (which some would say is "bad" for the rebellious image) in the Netherlands, detached from the musical trajectory he once mapped out—making him an outcast even in relation to his own art. He remains passive in the public eye, having rejected overtures from political leaders, and shows zero interest in the old political landscape from which he originally emerged as a rebel. He is an outsider by choice, and no one can truly follow him in that because he refuses to communicate his stance to anyone—and I am merely speculating here, as I believe since he left, he has given only one contentious interview... Springsteen is an outsider both by his own volition and by the very effect of his actions.

Jesus is an outsider by choice, but not by the effect of his actions; he is an anarchist, a pure ideological anarchist. His anarchism conquered the world, becoming the dominant religious ideological branch, and as such—having become ideologically bloated—it eventually became a target for new ideological anarchisms, such as the Lutheran one...

alim;
That’s correct—for someone to be a voluntary outsider, they need a "river of life"—a prevailing current to step away from. It is only by having this mainstream existence flowing steadily that an outsider can cultivate their own stance; it’s a kind of political cohabitation. If this main current didn't flow undisturbed, the outsider wouldn't be able to enjoy their own freedom.
However, being an outsider doesn't necessarily have to be a willful decision to step outside the stream; it can also be the result of being ideologically rejected or ostracized. In those cases, it becomes an unwanted, hated mark—a shackle placed upon someone who is actually struggling just to find a place within the current.

Similarly, that kind of freedom requires a sacrifice—usually, one gives up what is essential to the mainstream while retaining what is unimportant to them; it is precisely in this difference in perceived importance that the essence of being an outsider reveals itself...

@planinar: I think we’re all on the same page here. I actually wrote somewhere once that "you can't escape an ideology... as long as you keep talking." I guess Johnny was part of one of those "ideologies"—maybe not by choice, but he was tied to it as long as he was singing. If he wanted to stop being labeled, he would've had to just shut up completely. That's the price, I suppose. And even now, the second he makes any kind of appearance, people immediately try to drag him into some political camp—whether it's Democrats, Republicans, or whatever. So, it’s basically a choice: stay silent, or speak up and get inevitably misunderstood by a bunch of people (though maybe some of them get it right, who knows?). To me, it seems pretty obvious what all of us posting here have chosen—it's pretty clear: we aren't staying silent.

.. 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...

.. if an object is in stable equilibrium .. it returns when pushed .. much like a bell ..
.. if it's in unstable equilibrium .. once nudged, it moves away and doesn't come back .. like a coin balanced .. on the edge of a knife ..
.. if it's in neutral equilibrium .. it just stays wherever you put it .. like a ball .. rolling on the ground .. or maybe a bowling ball ..

.. the South wasn't in stable equilibrium .. its balance was unstable .. once it collapsed, it didn't recover ..
.. and if John helped tear it down .. is this current situation .. the stability he fought for ..
.. and if it is .. then why isn't .. that specific balance .. actually here ..

.. back in that war .. the American South fought for slavery .. and they considered it democratic .. since the ancient Greeks saw themselves as democrats too .. despite being a slave-owning society ..
.. neither side was truly in equilibrium .. things needed to change ..
.. Hitler wasn't in equilibrium .. nor Mussolini .. nor feudalism ..
.. they were all in unstable equilibrium .. and they fell .. they vanished ..

.. so .. one has to assume that modern global democracy .. this American model .. is the final equilibrium .. which means .. it's stable ..
.. which implies .. if pushed out of balance .. it returns .. it understands crises .. but it emerges from them ..

.. the fact that no school system ever really teaches why a system grows old .. or why it must eventually fail .. that's pretty obvious ..
.. and that many people fought just to maintain the status quo .. well, that's understandable ..

.. the idea that everyone in the world today would be perfectly satisfied with their station in life .. everywhere .. that's .. obviously not .. the case ..
.. so .. that isn't the reason for equilibrium ..

.. the cause of equilibrium must be .. essentially .. some sort of resultant force ..
.. and it might be best to view it as biological .. akin to the struggle for survival .. where no force is strong enough to oppose it ..

.. in that way .. this democracy .. could be .. a thousand-year Reich ..
.. you can't stop the world .. you can't freeze it in time .. you can't tell the Chinese to just stop .. and progress is something this democracy simply has to endure ..

.. Marx argued that the state of the means of production .. was the key to a society's level of development ..
.. years ago, I was in a hospital .. staying with my siblings .. some kids there stayed for quite a while .. I was there for about a month, I think, and even that felt long .. we had teachers coming in to teach us .. nothing too serious, mind you .. and I remember one teacher saying the reason Rome fell .. was because the slaves became too smart .. when the overseer wasn't looking, they'd strike the stone with a pickaxe .. then take it to the overseer and say .. it broke ..
.. later, I realized that Marx and that teacher were saying the exact same thing ..

.. I tend to agree with them .. labor is significant .. though I'm not sure if man creates the tractor or the tractor creates man ..
.. but I also think social ties matter .. things like church charities .. television .. volunteer groups .. the Department of Health .. the government ..
.. and I believe money matters too .. whether it's viewed as a divinity .. or a beast ..
.. and I still think the individual matters ..

.. damn it .. what kind of argument for anarchy would it be if I didn't believe the individual mattered ..

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....

Jonathan Brooks8 said: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....

I'm with you. Johnny showed up right when I was in college, and his arrival lined up perfectly with groups like Charlie, Idol, and The Rolling Stones (Laura was still in high school back then, near the downtown campus, while I was living in a nearby student dorm)....... Honestly, I think I caught Johnny's first or second concert in Chicago, where we were all blown away by how much he rejected the status quo, not to mention that incredibly tight, flawless live sound. That was right after the death of the old leader.
Back then, the biggest hit in Chicago (and the whole USA, really) was "Ann" by Silver Wings.
I think Johnny only became a legend for the generations that never saw him live. It's probably because he vanished from the music scene at his peak without explaining himself, which gave his exit this mystical—and if you ask me, totally unnecessary—vibe.

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...

So you're saying you just wanted a place to call home. Hey, I dig that. But you decided to build this house right in the middle of a neighborhood where people already lived (you could've just started a blog, but you showed up where the crowd already was). So, what's the deal with you writing for a year without any trouble? It just means that once you got settled in, after the initial growing pains, nobody felt the need to mess with you.

I mean, it makes sense to ask: why would anyone even bother bothering you in the first place?

If I'm following you correctly, you're saying the system is naturally designed to smother that spark of freedom. And in redtinker36, that spark is burning bright. So, the system basically has no choice but to try and snuff it out—it can't help itself. That’s your argument, right? It tries to crush you because you're just too free for the system to handle.

But okay, you were writing for a full year without the system trying to choke you out. So, what actually happened?

I think the real issue was that at some point, the people living in your "house" tried to turn the entire neighborhood into their own private backyard. That's when the system stepped in—not because the system is inherently out to kill your spark, but because the core function of the system was being threatened (which is making sure everyone posting here feels like they can speak freely and relax without getting harassed).

So, look, my responsibility was to let your house stay up as long as I thought it wasn't bothering anyone else. My co-responsibility was to shut it down once I felt it was becoming a problem. But the responsibility on your end? That's for building your house right in the middle of a residential area (instead of somewhere isolated, though you had the option) and letting the noise from your place spill over into the street so much that the neighbors couldn't even have a normal conversation anymore.

James Lee77 said:I guess you could say the same thing about being an outsider. There’s actually a whole ideology centered on being an outsider, especially when it's pushed through art: think rock music (punk, Bruce Springsteen, Lou Reed, etc.), or movies (those Clint Eastwood westerns, for example). Even the big archetypal figures that shape the identity of the West have that outsider vibe: Jesus was an outsider among the Jews, Socrates among the Athenians, and Galileo among the Christians. So, an "outsider ideology" isn't just possible—it’s actually super widespread (maybe even foundational to the West).

I mean, a person can't really escape ideology as long as they have something to communicate—basically, as long as they're speaking. Because whatever they say (if they say anything at all) consists of ideas, of *logos*. You can only really rise above some ideology by understanding its terms, by grasping why it's necessary for someone in the first place. Honestly, if someone thinks an ideology is totally pointless, maybe they just haven't understood it yet—because if it were truly meaningless, it wouldn't be so successful. It's more about rising above it rather than escaping it entirely.

Look, I’m sorry... but you're honestly just talking nonsense!

Being an outsider isn't some kind of ideology—it’s just what happens when people face discrimination. Think about figures like Jesus or Socrates; they weren't out there preaching a manifesto about being outsiders, nor was it their specific belief system that pushed them to the fringes. Their "outsider status" was simply the fallout from the prejudice and primitivism of the society around them. To claim that being sidelined by discrimination is actually an ideology... well, that just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word ideology even means in the first place.

You just can't escape your own ideology as long as you’re actively mediating what you have to offer—which basically means, as long as you're still talking. I mean, think about it: everything that comes out of your mouth (assuming you're actually saying anything at all) is composed of ideas—it's pure *logos*. There isn't really any way out of that loop unless you manage to rise above it somehow. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that—it feels like a fragment of a thought left hanging there. If you were trying to get a point across or start a conversation, feel free to lay it all out for me. I’m all ears, and I don't mind if it gets a little long-winded—sometimes the best discussions need a bit of room to breathe. What's on your mind? To really get an ideology, you have to actually sit down and wrap your head around its internal logic—you have to understand its core requirements and, more importantly, why anyone would ever find it necessary in the first place. Honestly, whenever I run into someone who dismisses an entire ideology as "pointless" or "nonsense," I can't help but think they haven't actually done the work to understand it. I mean, if an ideology were truly without merit or purpose, it wouldn't be able to take root or sustain itself in the first place. It’s about learning how to rise above it rather than just trying to walk away from it.

I hope you aren't under the impression that "ideology" is just some simple mashup of "idea" plus "logos"—because, if you look at the actual roots, that suffix "-logy" implies a systematic study, a formal development, or an entire established doctrine.

Ideology—it’s one of those words that gets thrown around so much these days that it almost feels like it has lost its teeth, doesn't it? People toss it around during dinner parties or in heated Twitter threads like it's some kind of magic spell to discredit an opponent. But if you really peel back the layers, what are we actually talking about? To me, ideology isn't just a list of political demands or a set of policies tucked away in a party platform. It’s more like the lens through which you view the entire world—sort of like how a photographer chooses a specific filter to change the mood of a shot. Once you put that lens on, everything looks different. Every event, every news headline, every interaction you have with a stranger gets filtered through that specific perspective. You aren't just seeing reality; you're seeing a version of reality that has been color-graded by your core beliefs. Think of it like this: imagine two people watching the exact same baseball game at Yankee Stadium. One person sees a beautiful display of strategic skill and teamwork, while the other sees a chaotic mess of luck and overpriced concessions. They’re looking at the same diamond, the same players, and the same scoreboard, but their "ideology"—their underlying assumptions about how sports or even society should function—dictates what they take away from the experience. The danger, I think, isn't having an ideology—we all have them, whether we admit it or not—but rather when that lens becomes so thick that you can't see through it anymore. When you stop being able to recognize the validity of someone else's perspective because your own "filter" tells you they're fundamentally wrong, that's when things get messy. It turns into a closed loop where you only seek out information that reinforces what you already believe, creating this echo chamber effect that makes actual conversation nearly impossible. It’s a delicate balance, really. We need frameworks to make sense of the chaos of life, but we also need to remember to occasionally wipe the lens clean so we don't lose sight of the actual world sitting right in front of us.
Back in 1796, we saw the birth of what people called the "science of ideas." It was originally framed as a philosophy of the mind—basically, a way to derive actual knowledge through our senses rather than getting lost in the weeds of pure metaphysics. This whole concept grew out of the French term *idéologie*, which translates to the study or science of ideas. It was actually coined by the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy, who mashed together the Greek root for "idea" with "-logy" to create *idéologie*. It wasn't until much later, around 1909, that we started using the phrase to describe a systematic set of doctrines or a specific collection of ideas. And if you’ve ever heard someone tossed around as an "ideologue," that term actually dates back to 1815, specifically when people were talking about the revolutionaries during the French Revolution.
When people talk about "ideology," they’re usually referring to those rigid, prescriptive doctrines—the kind of set-in-stone belief systems that don't really bother to back themselves up with actual, logical reasoning. It’s like someone trying to convince you that a specific way of life is the only right path without ever being able to explain the "why" behind it using sound logic.
D.D. Raphael, "Problems of Political Philosophy," 1970

Look, let's be clear about this—just because someone voices an idea doesn't mean they've suddenly stumbled into an ideology. There's a massive difference there. To me, that "-ology" suffix actually tells the whole story; it implies a systematic doctrine or a structured discipline that has been built up, layer by layer, around that initial core concept. It’s the transition from a single thought to a full-blown framework.

If you take the core premise—that we can actually cure certain ailments just by administering the right specific compound—and decide to approach that concept with actual scientific rigor and a systematic framework, then you've basically given birth to pharmacology. It’s funny when you think about it that way—every "-ology" out there essentially builds its own distinct mental map or "picture" of how the world works. The idea of reaching some kind of "perfect state"—that absolute, flawless ideal we all seem to be chasing—is a bit of a slippery concept, isn't it? It’s one of those things that sounds wonderful when you first wrap your head around it, but once you start digging into the actual mechanics of it, things get complicated fast. It’s like trying to catch lightning in a bottle, or maybe more accurately, like trying to find a perfectly quiet afternoon in the middle of downtown Chicago—it’s a beautiful thought, but reality usually has other plans. What exactly is the end goal here—what is it actually aiming for—and what kind of methodology is being used to try and make that happen? The perfect state of affairs. And that—right there—is exactly why we call it an ideology.

On the other hand—think about when Tesla first hit upon that groundbreaking idea for how to... It’s all about making things better—just a steady, incremental improvement to the way everything works. Look, when you talk about an electric motor transitioning from direct current to alternating current—and actually pulling that off through systematic research and hard work—that’s what we call innovation. It isn't some grand ideology or a political manifesto. Tesla didn't just sit around staring at a "perfect vision" of a motor in his head; instead, he looked at the tools available in those specific circumstances and figured out how to make them better. He improved the reality right in front of him.

To me, ideology is basically just any system that tries to force a specific ideal onto reality—it’s that constant, relentless push to reshape everything else to fit under its own umbrella, all in this obsessive pursuit of turning the subject of change into something "perfect."

To you, even a breakthrough from Tesla would count as ideology, which is just plain absurd. If we label absolutely everything we say as "ideology," then the word loses all its weight—it stops being useful because it fails to distinguish one thing from another.

ps: Look, if anarchy is defined as a society striving to free itself from individual ambitions and personal agendas—aiming to function without any single authority figure imposing their own "ideal" onto everyone else—then by definition, anarchy can't be an ideology!

A society like that wouldn't have a singular ideal or a unified vision for itself. After all, for a society to possess a grand vision or a blueprint for its future, there has to be an individual who carries that specific vision and idea, which is then collectively adopted as the group's shared goal.

redtinker36 said:.. anarchy might be considered an ideology -- I don't know much about it, honestly -- but I tend to stick to one approach... that you can slowly pull yourself away from any ideology you know... or any group you belong to...
.. during that process, you have to accept all sorts of things... binding yourself again... in different ways...
.. but you can always keep one thing in mind: your ultimate goal is to pull yourself back toward yourself... toward your own core...
.. that doesn't mean you have to write everyone else off -- that isn't really possible -- but it means if you can become even a millimeter freer, you take it. Because you know that’s the point...

.. I wouldn't say humans have a natural craving to be enslaved... but it's precisely that enslavement... or belonging to a specific circle... that secures one's survival...
.. and there's always that catch... the tighter the circle, the worse the curse when you finally try to leave it...
.. I'd argue that a spark—a dream of freedom—exists in everyone... and people actually spend far more energy trying to kill that spark than they do trying to fan it into a flame...

.. every circle, every ideology, has its period of birth, development, and death...
.. democracy is certainly a highly developed ideology, and I don't think there is a true ideology capable of replacing it...
.. I don't think there are enough... knots of ideas and thoughts... logical enough to tie themselves together... to unite people into a new collective...
.. I believe the destiny of man is... man himself...

.. but... what I actually meant was this...
.. I just felt like talking... so I started talking... which usually leads to arguing, which then gets me kicked out, and that's fine...
.. I wanted to talk... it feels like philosophy, but my interest would fade quickly, so I'd move to anarchy, and eventually... maybe even to Papa Wojtyła...
.. I said I "felt like talking" because I wanted to feel at home somewhere. Whoever wants to open up can talk, or argue... and if they don't want to, they owe no one anything...
.. but the system won't allow it. The moderators feel they need to "guide" me—as if I shouldn't be given that freedom. I remember... last time, the question was whether I was even cut out for philosophy...
.. let's assume those are the rules, and that they are right in some sense...

.. the question I'm asking myself is this...

.. first... is the ideology setting the rule reliable enough? What is it built upon? It could be based on an organization with its own questionable motives—whether through ignorance or malice...
.. second... can some completely insignificant rule shape me... turn me into a member who eventually loses the ability to see even the most obvious truths... like the fact that Hitler was burning millions of people in camps...

redtinker36 said:.. anarchy might be considered an ideology -- I don't know much about it, honestly -- but I tend to stick to one approach... that you can slowly pull yourself away from any ideology you know... or any group you belong to...
.. during that process, you have to accept all sorts of things... binding yourself again... in different ways...
.. but you can always keep one thing in mind: your ultimate goal is to pull yourself back toward yourself... toward your own core...
.. that doesn't mean you have to write everyone else off -- that isn't really possible -- but it means if you can become even a millimeter freer, you take it. Because you know that’s the point...

.. I wouldn't say humans have a natural craving to be enslaved... but it's precisely that enslavement... or belonging to a specific circle... that secures one's survival...
.. and there's always that catch... the tighter the circle, the worse the curse when you finally try to leave it...
.. I'd argue that a spark—a dream of freedom—exists in everyone... and people actually spend far more energy trying to kill that spark than they do trying to fan it into a flame...

.. every circle, every ideology, has its period of birth, development, and death...
.. democracy is certainly a highly developed ideology, and I don't think there is a true ideology capable of replacing it...
.. I don't think there are enough... knots of ideas and thoughts... logical enough to tie themselves together... to unite people into a new collective...
.. I believe the destiny of man is... man himself...

.. but... what I actually meant was this...
.. I just felt like talking... so I started talking... which usually leads to arguing, which then gets me kicked out, and that's fine...
.. I wanted to talk... it feels like philosophy, but my interest would fade quickly, so I'd move to anarchy, and eventually... maybe even to Papa Wojtyła...
.. I said I "felt like talking" because I wanted to feel at home somewhere. Whoever wants to open up can talk, or argue... and if they don't want to, they owe no one anything...
.. but the system won't allow it. The moderators feel they need to "guide" me—as if I shouldn't be given that freedom. I remember... last time, the question was whether I was even cut out for philosophy...
.. let's assume those are the rules, and that they are right in some sense...

.. the question I'm asking myself is this...

.. first... is the ideology setting the rule reliable enough? What is it built upon? It could be based on an organization with its own questionable motives—whether through ignorance or malice...
.. second... can some completely insignificant rule shape me... turn me into a member who eventually loses the ability to see even the most obvious truths... like the fact that Hitler was burning millions of people in camps...

Hey there, redtinker36!

Even though you kind of answered your own question without really realizing it, I still feel like I should point this out—mostly because the obvious stuff is usually the hardest thing to actually see.

Your first question really hits on what defines a criterion, and honestly, the benchmark for philosophy is pretty straightforward—it’s all about that genuine love of knowledge. To me, discussing philosophy on a forum like this should be seen as a communicative discipline. That means, besides having a passion for learning, there has to be a standard for how we actually talk to one another. After all, even if you’re sharing "good information," if the delivery is clumsy or poorly communicated, it just ends up being a failed attempt at passing along something valuable.

Look, man—your neighbors, the Jews, Hitler, and whatever other bunch of roommates you’ve got hanging around—they might be charmingly introverted in their own weird way, but as a platform for actual communication? They’re pretty archaic and honestly just plain decadent. Philosophy is supposed to push us toward more sophisticated ways of expressing ourselves, not stripping everything down into something banal. If I remember correctly... that was the exact reason I decided to move.

Look, if what you said in that first line is actually true—you know, the whole idea that anyone who wants to step up will, and nobody is forcing anyone's hand—then I honestly don't see how the system actually messed with your plans by moving this thread to a different PDF. At the end of the day, the core principle remains exactly the same: if you want to be involved, you're in, and if you don't, nobody's going to drag you along. It’s pretty straightforward like that.

I’ve had a few of my threads moved over from the philosophy section myself—it happens—but honestly, it hasn't stopped me from jumping back into those discussions on the other PDF. I don't feel like I'm being shut out or "threatened" by the move at all; it's really no big deal.

So, look—it’s pretty obvious to me that you're really hung up on the whole label thing—you know, that deep-seated need for social acceptance and being "in." Honestly, it’s pretty clear from that second part of your post, too:

redtinker36 said:.. anarchy might be considered an ideology -- I don't know much about it, honestly -- but I tend to stick to one approach... that you can slowly pull yourself away from any ideology you know... or any group you belong to...
.. during that process, you have to accept all sorts of things... binding yourself again... in different ways...
.. but you can always keep one thing in mind: your ultimate goal is to pull yourself back toward yourself... toward your own core...
.. that doesn't mean you have to write everyone else off -- that isn't really possible -- but it means if you can become even a millimeter freer, you take it. Because you know that’s the point...

.. I wouldn't say humans have a natural craving to be enslaved... but it's precisely that enslavement... or belonging to a specific circle... that secures one's survival...
.. and there's always that catch... the tighter the circle, the worse the curse when you finally try to leave it...
.. I'd argue that a spark—a dream of freedom—exists in everyone... and people actually spend far more energy trying to kill that spark than they do trying to fan it into a flame...

.. every circle, every ideology, has its period of birth, development, and death...
.. democracy is certainly a highly developed ideology, and I don't think there is a true ideology capable of replacing it...
.. I don't think there are enough... knots of ideas and thoughts... logical enough to tie themselves together... to unite people into a new collective...
.. I believe the destiny of man is... man himself...

.. but... what I actually meant was this...
.. I just felt like talking... so I started talking... which usually leads to arguing, which then gets me kicked out, and that's fine...
.. I wanted to talk... it feels like philosophy, but my interest would fade quickly, so I'd move to anarchy, and eventually... maybe even to Papa Wojtyła...
.. I said I "felt like talking" because I wanted to feel at home somewhere. Whoever wants to open up can talk, or argue... and if they don't want to, they owe no one anything...
.. but the system won't allow it. The moderators feel they need to "guide" me—as if I shouldn't be given that freedom. I remember... last time, the question was whether I was even cut out for philosophy...
.. let's assume those are the rules, and that they are right in some sense...

.. the question I'm asking myself is this...

.. first... is the ideology setting the rule reliable enough? What is it built upon? It could be based on an organization with its own questionable motives—whether through ignorance or malice...
.. second... can some completely insignificant rule shape me... turn me into a member who eventually loses the ability to see even the most obvious truths... like the fact that Hitler was burning millions of people in camps...

Actually, you kind of answered your own second question... which was basically:

...the other part... can some totally insignificant rule actually shape me... mold me... into someone who eventually loses the ability to see even the most obvious things right in front of them?

Look, if you’re looking to be accepted as part of a group—and it seems pretty clear that you are—then it’s completely irrational to expect that group to bend over backward just to accommodate you. It’s a simple choice, really: either you adapt to the group, or you remain an outsider. There isn't much middle ground there.

Since we all choose to show up to this forum of our own free will, you can't really complain about "societal pressure" or people imposing standards on your fragile ego—after all, you don't *have* to be here.

You're here because you want to be, yet most of your time is spent venting about how "society" treats you... honestly, it feels like a digital version of Stockholm Syndrome at this point. 🤷

At the end of the day, your refusal to play by the communication standards of this online community, combined with your insistence on using this archaic, almost decadent way of speaking, is in direct conflict with your deep-seated need to feel accepted and "at home" here.

You can spend your time questioning our social norms until you're blue in the face, or you can sulk for another three years because a thread got moved... but either way, you'll just end up feeling just as rejected as you do right now.

If that's the path you take, then you're essentially your own worst enemy. You're forcing yourself to spend time in a place where your own behavior turns every visit into an emotional ordeal.

I think it's time to make a decision... do you actually want to be part of a "society" or not? You communicate as if you couldn't care less about belonging, yet you're constantly complaining that you aren't being embraced. 🤷

I hope that helps... even if it's a bit blunt!

.. 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 ..

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 ..

Beyoncé! You've finally realized that your "right" to build a "house" in this "neighborhood" inherently carries the "right of the neighborhood" to move that "house" or tear it down entirely.

In other words—you’ve stumbled upon the fact that society is nothing more than pure reciprocity!
(And let's not overcomplicate things with shallow neighborhood metaphors)

Now, all that's left is for you to align your actual behavior with this newfound understanding—once you've accepted your "right to build," you really ought to respect the "rights of the neighborhood" that naturally stem from that choice.

You can't cherry-pick the "rights" for yourself and then throw a fit when the "neighborhood" starts meddling in your "house." If you wanted a house where the neighbors had zero say in anything, you shouldn't have tried to build it in a community in the first place. It’s pretty straightforward!

.. it's the same deal with Americans .. they love helping the whole world .. but if that love isn't reciprocated, they start bombing people ..

Americans just talk a big game about loving and helping the world, while their actual actions tell a completely different story—so what they say is just propaganda, and what they actually do is pure hypocrisy.

Honestly, though, I don't see any basis for comparing the forum administration to Americans. This forum is actually quite transparent about "loving" our clicks because they drive the ad revenue, and for the most part, there isn't much gap between what the rules say and how things actually run here.