Just a quick post; there's a howling flaw here.: : 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.
Robert, who defines the term "anarchist"? It comes from the theorists who invented the idea. Any other usage is simply incorrect.
If you seek to define a term by the gloss that the opponents put on it, then I'm entirely justified in calling you a "genocidal reactionary supremacist bigot", since opponents to Christianity have used those terms (with some justification!) to describe the Christian Church.
So, Robert, if I were to use your own (faulty) logic against you, I would be entirely correct in calling you genocidal (check the last 1800 years of Christian history), bigoted (ditto), narrowminded (ditto) and so on.
To which, of course, you would respond "oh, but that's not Christianity; it's not what Jesus taught"; so how is Floyd any more responsible for those who have misused the idea of anarchism than you are for those who misused the teachings of Christ?
Anarchism is not inherently violent. If you define a term by the bias of its opponents, then you belong to a murderous cult. Take the beam out of your own eye, Robert...
Gideon.
(who visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre last Saturday; possibly the most tasteless building I've ever seen in my life. Really. The word "tacky" doesn't begin to do it justice. But you can hire crosses outside, if you want to carry them around for a bit...)
