Floyd, my dear chap,: And this statement is based on what experience? On which particular anarchists?
In France, during their revolution, many would conclude that they were led by "anarchists" and that they were going to usher in an "Age of Reason". It didn't take long however for that to turn into a Reign of Terror, now did it? Stark conformity then followed or they ended up at the chopping block.
In Russia, "anarchists" promised to usher in a Utopian society after the "people's" revolution. It didn't take long however for the terror of the "collectivisation programmes" to start their purges. Stark conformity then followed or they ended up in places like Archangel.
On a more contemporary note, SDF and similar theorists claimed that the Greens promised a better environment. However when we saw the mass bombing of Federal Yugoslavia with its inherent environmental disasters (ie. oil slicks on the on the once blue Danube, poisonous chemicals leaked into water supplies, uranium missles fired into civilian populations, internationally banned cluster bombs raining down on civilian populations, etc.), what was the word from the Green minister in Germany. You got it, the heck with the environment, conformity is the order of the day. It never was about the environment, was it? It was always about pure power all along, heh? (Perhaps by seeing first hand the betrayal, some "greens" will finally wise-up and see that they are being used like a dirty dish rag.)
History is replete with these type of examples. Why would anyone think that the new crop of "anarchists" will have a different outcome than their woefully failed predecessors, I cannot surmise.
They all have the same modus operendi, promise a "better" society (whatever that might be no one usually asks or anyone is able to really explain), agitate at the roots to break-down the societal fabric and corrupt morals, then cause a situation where mob rule is the order of the day, and then when the "anarchy" power vacuum becomes too prevalent a dictator moves in to fill the void.
: As usual, Robert, you've made a huge, grandiose statement about a subject in which you have no expertise, and you've neglected to offer even a single splinter of evidence to support your outrageous claim. This is not good debating style, Robert.
Well I've just provided some specific examples (by your request). I would ask, why are you so impatient and presumptuous? Regardless of the challenge I offer within the dialogue, you (if you were truly sincere in your "debate") should welcome it. But no, apparently you are terribly vexed at the idea of someone challenging, in this case, the basic premise on which you base your entire programme on.
It is indeed pertinent in any honest discussion to challenge the premises on which the argument is based. If you get them wrong, then your entire argument becomes suspect. Perhaps this is the root of your anger. Perhaps you are merely interested in "debating style". I'm more interested in content.
Moreover you keep refering to a "conspiracy". I've never mentioned that word. Perhaps you can enlighten myself and the audience on your vision of this accusation. You mentioned that my argumet had something to do with a writing on Patmos Island. Please explain and be specific.
As I answered your challenge to provide examples of anarchists who turn conformist with the French and Russian and Green examples, now the shoe is on the other foot. Show me some examples of your fantasy "conspiracy" and how they apply to the Biblical versus that you envision. Fair is fair, or perhaps this a classic example of a prejudiced and hence resultant falacious charge against me.
Is this good "debating style"? It sounds like an attempt at intimidation myself. Perhaps I'm to be mocked and jeered just for having the gaul of taking a dissenting view, heh? Stop the childishness please.
I'll state unambiguously here that I see no conspiracy at all (that's your allegation, not mine). Any move towards the destruction of the nation-state and the ensuing dehumanisation by the world culture is totally out in the open and clear for anyone to see. Perhaps I'll comment more on that in another post.
: :Do you not demand an authority to subsidise through taxation (ie. the force of law) your desires for your state-education programme?
: Actually, an anarchist education system is not a "state-education programme," again by definition, and anarchist communities do not impose arbitrary taxation or acknowledge the validity of the "force of law." Your statement is therefore meaningless. However, trying to decypher some meaning from it, I think you are asking if I believe that the beneficiaries of an education system (i.e. the community that receives the products, whether material or conceptual, of an education) should in some way support that education system. In that case, yes, I do. If a group of people wants to benefit from an organized approach to knowledge, they should expect to offer some effort in exchange for those benefits. That does not mean that I support the forced taxation of people outside of the community of beneficiaries, nor does it mean that I support a centralized decision making authority. Your claim once again mis-represents the nature of anarchist thought, and the more of these types of claims you make, the more apparent it becomes that you really don't understand the nature of anarchism.
Question, are the universities where you and SDF teach state-funded in any way? To a large extent perhaps?
If yes, then I rest my case. The key here is in-practice not theoretics or philosophies, my dear chap.
: Nor, it seems, are there any requirements to actually understand a subject before spouting off about it. Frankly, Robert, given how little you understand about science and philosophy, I am beginning to wonder if your knowledge of religion and spirituality is as good as I've been crediting you with. What I mean is that you seem to be so poorly informed about so many subjects, that I worry you may have just as poor an understanding of other subjects as well. Increasingly, I'm realising that your interpretation of christianity most decidedly doesn't jibe with what I know about the subject!
: Honestly, Robert, in the interest of creating a successful discussion, I'd like to request that you actually make an attempt to understand what other people in this room are actually saying, rather than responding to some single line, taken out of context and then twisted to fit your whacked interpretation of the world. That approach doesn't convince anyone of your position, it just makes you look foolish or worse.
Two paragraphs to repeat the same jeers already leveled above again and again. It leads me to believe that your real motive is to lash out at me vice having a meaningful conversation. Perhaps I challenge your arguments to the point of anger. That is not my objective here.
Know one thing about Jesus, there is no paranoia as you suggest. Specific examples, "be of good cheer" (John 16:33), "Worry not" (Matthew 6:34), "Do not be afraid" (Revelations 1:17) even in troublesome times. Perhaps that makes me look foolish, but as they say in Hangul, kan-chan-ay-o. God Bless.
Robert
