Floyd, my dear chap,: As Nikhil has already pointed out to you, (1) the French Revolution was a revolt of bourgeois capitalists against feudal monarchists. There were no anarchists involved. The Bolsheviks crushed Makhno and the other "black" armies with even more gusto than they attacked the whites. The Greens, while thier goals are noble, are also not anarchists, since they propose change through a restructuring of national constitutional governments, rather than an elimination thereof. Once again, you've demonstrated that you really have no idea what you're talking about. Your equation "violent = anarchist" is patently false. Most modern anarchist theoreticians reject violence altogether, whereas most statists see it as "diplomacy by another means."
Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. France in 1793 was clearly in a state of anarchy and anarchists overwhelmed the day. That is why the Reign of Terror was ushered in, to quell the anarchists and hence fill the vacuum. The same could be said for Russia. As for the Greens, it is many of its members here that have led me to believe that they are also indeed anarchists. So forgive me if I get the wrong impression.
My take on this semantical difference is that the term anarchist, as it is currently being used, is simply a bureacratic title that people apply to themselves so as to gain attention where their content fails. So on your way anarchist.
: As for the German minister of whom you wrote, I must ask why you can make appologies for the mistakes of people who agree with you, but not for those who don't. You seem to be holding Greens to a higher standard of ethics than Christians, and that strikes me as pretty hypocritical, especially from someone who claims to have all the answers to moral dillemas already written down.
The Green problem is not merely one of hypocracy, that's always been evident in their approach. The unescapable problem now with the Greens is the out-and-out betrayal by their leadership. Simply sweeping it under the rug won't solve these contradictions. On your way Greens.
: I'll agree with you insofar as history is replete with examples of violence, however, as none of the groups you mentioned were anarchists, your comment is irrelevant twaddle.
Again, you can apply whatever bureacratic term to whatever group suits you best. The fact is these historical examples show that anarchy (in practice) is followed by the grim realities and patterns as mentioned in the original post. On your way irrelevency.
: : They all have the same modus operendi, promise a "better" society
: Sort of like a rabbi I heard about who lived in the middle east a few thousand years ago.
Jesus never came to promise a "better" society. He came to save us from our sin. That's all, no other agenda.
: For example, tell fishermen and hookers to rebel against the social order that tells them they're low-ranking individuals?
Actually Jesus never taught anarchist-type violence.
: Kick all the honest businessmen out of the temple courtyard, stir up a bunch of radicals and eventually get hauled before the local magistrate and condemned?
The "businessmen" were firstly not honest, they were thieves. That is why Jesus rightfully kicked them out of the temple. As for stirring up radicals, Jesus faced His trial and death on the cross alone. The state had its way that day, and thank God they did. It offers us all the opportunuty to come in worship of Our Saviour Who bore our sin debt. The invitation is here for you, Floyd, right here and now.
: and dissenters are stoned to death. Later when the dissenters take over, counter-revolutionaries, folks who want a return to the old ways, are sent before the inquisition and burned at the stake.
Yes, Stephen was stoned to death, but he lives with God today. There is ultimately victory in that. As for the equating of the inquisition with Christ, that is man's work not God's. The Church is not a building, nor an ecclesiastical hierarchy, nor any other physical manifestation. Jesus' Church is the Kingdom of Grace and that resides only in the hearts of believers.
No church can save you. Only Jesus can save you. Perhaps you will take a minute here to ponder that thought, since you have been so profoundly misled up until now.
: And wears a dress and a tall, pointy, fish-shaped hat and lives in a palace in Rome.
Again, read the above commentary.
: What you've done here, Robert, is to make a series of statements about how revolutionary events happen, but these are so general that they will apply to any heirarchical movement, including the history of christianity, as I just demonstrated. Making statements that are so general that they apply to all situations is basically what the newspaper horoscopes and the "psychic friends" phone lines do. It's not particularly useful as a technique in historical analysis, however.
Actually I was very specific with examples to places, times and events. Perhaps you are the evasive one here. On your way generality.
: In addition, it is particularly unhelpful in this context, since the statements you made all apply only to heirarchical movements. Since anarchists are opposed to heirarchy, your comments are not germane to the discussion.
Anarchists by their "triumph" open the gates for the power lusters to take charge. That is clear to see as I've described above and it is indeed germane to the argument.
: What you did was say "State A was bad, state B was bad, and state C is bad, therefore anarchism is bad." This is a non sequitur. The premises do not lead to the conclusion at all. The argument against the state societies that you present strikes me as offering more support for my position than for yours.
When France was in anarchy in 1793 it had no state. Same for Russia. Perhaps in semantics it did, but in practice no, it was utter chaos. So your logic diagram misrepresents my argument grossly.
: As for you being more interested in content than I am, well, again, see above. If you're so intersted in content, please make sure that your statements are applicable and that you understand both your opponent's position and your own.
Perhaps that applies to yourself likewise. On your way understanding.
: : 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.
: Gladly. In Happy Lenin's Birthday, (er hum), Earth Day you imply that the effort to increase awareness of environmental issues is controlled by communists... ...you claim that all of modern biology, paleoanthropology, archaeology, and geology is a hoax, perpetrated by scientists to decieve the public and lead them astray.
I wasn't aware that communism was a conspiracy, Floyd. Seems to me that you can pick up a book on it in just about any library. If there is one good thing about communism, it tells you the plan up-front. Have I charged conspricy here? No, just assembled events that match the original plan and noticed the correlation. On your way conspiracy.
Moreover it was you who finally admitted that those same imaginative drawings of "stooping apemen" were outdated and really didn't present the right pictiure, even though they are displayed in museums in London, Germany, Amsterdam, Washington, and many others. Now either with your own admission, you are part of this deception, or you finally agreed with me on the point. I think it is the latter, and I thank you for being so brave to admit its fraudulence or as you might say "outdattedness". On your way imaginary stooping apemen.
: :You mentioned that my argumet had something to do with a writing on Patmos Island. Please explain and be specific.
: Pretty funny, Robert. You want me to quote bible verses at you. Ha ha ha. You know that if I open that book, all my old delusions will simply wash away, and I won't be an evolutionist, anarchist, queer, satanic, pagan, commie, alien abductee any more, I'll be a devoted follower of the one true word of Rober...uh...I mean Jesus... I can't have all my illusions stripped away, Robert, that would be too much for me. I'd better not touch that book. (Closed captioning for the humor-impared: this is sarcasm.)
Your attempt to cover your allegations about me with sarcasm has failed. Perhaps if its supposed to be humourous, next time make it funny at least. On your way sarcasm.
Again, you have done exactly what you accused me of doing. That is, making charges and failing to back them up. So what gives on this Patmos Island stuff, hmm?
: Robert, your examples of what you mistakenly thought was anarchism were not relevant. My examples of your paranoia are citations of your own works.
Again, you as an insider to the subject identify with the bureacratic term "anarchism". From an outsiders view in, the French, Russian, and Green examples are very illustratively real. As for your charge of "paranoia", again you seek more to make personal attacks than to further substantive arguments. As this seems to be your continual method of debate, I'll simply dismiss this charge as inuendo and smear. On your way paranoia.
: Yes, well, the facts are always good propoganda for us anarchists.
Of which you've cleverly avoided I must say.
: In fact, your effort to portray yourself as a martyr to truth, being mocked and jeered by the unwashed hordes of pagans, strikes me as pretty vain. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a mortal sin?
No martyr here, and I've never responded to "hordes". I've only responded to you. So quit trying to enlargen your trust.
: : 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.
: Given that we do live in either an anarchist collective or a Green republic, but SDF and I are each making efforts to change this situation, I don't see how your comment is relevant. Our goals for the future are not invalidated by our situations in the present. To put it another way, you keep saying that the kingdom of god is not of this world, and yet you stay here, in this world. Is it because you don't want to be a part of the kingdom of god? Of course not. It's that you can't be part of the future until it becomes the present. Neither can we, and it is still unreasonable for you to hold Greens and anarchists to a higher standard of morality than you hold yourself.
The Kingdom of God is the joy and happiness of the Holy Spirit. It is a Kingdom of Grace and not flesh. It cannot be found in a physical manifestation. So one can indeed be in the Kingdom of God whilst living out his life here on earth.
The same cannot be said for the philosophies that you hold, nor can they be in any way analogous.
: Actually, what makes you look foolish is your persistent willingness to debate on topics about which your knowledge is either minimal or completely wrong, or both. Sorry to inform you of this
Talk about vanity. On your way vanity.
"Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus." (Philipians 3:13-14)
Robert
