Anarchism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of anarchism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Anarchism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership. Anarchism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Anarchists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire no government to implement their amoral social policies. Anarchism is a religion. The religious nature of anarchism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
See? This is why I get mad. This is incredibly dishonest.
You prove every point.
Anarchists are collectivists. Why else would you want to bring down a Republic?
I swear Rod Serling is going to show up any minute. How the hell are we collectivists when we’ve written reams vehemently asserting the primacy of individual rights?
Denies examination and is irrational, even though this whole thread we’ve participated in an examination and given logical reasoning for our position.
There is no dogma because it’s an apophatic position - no rulers - that’s all. No utopia, euphoria, or social order beyond reproach. There can be order - that’s what humans do - but there is no doctrine delineating what that would or should be.
No uniformity or communal ownership. Our extraordinary ability to inspire social movements is beating our heads against a wall while people ignore most of the noises that come out.
Where are the incongruities? The logic has been consistently based on self-ownership. It’s not amoral, as it’s wholly rooted in morality, as we’ve expressed or implied in nearly every post.
Not a religion, there’s no belief system inherent to anarchy other than “slavery is bad”. No hostility toward other religions, in fact, no mention of them at all.
Materialism, atheism - no mention of them. Primitive instincts - directly opposed by citing recognition of moral law and calling for evolution of consciousness. Deification of man - expressly said men are not Gods and therefore cannot make law; condone recognition of natural law.
Distinction between good and evil is our entire point, pleasure as a primary value not mentioned or implied. The exact opposite of moral relativity, expressly condone discrimination of thought, chastised normalization of deviation by implication, as strict adherence to a caregorical moral imperative is being condoned.
Marxism - anarchy implies nothing about economics or communal systems. It implies nothing about science or family. Expressly recognized private property rights, and denied the legitmacy of external control.
Implored others to embrace critical thinking while practicing it relentlessly. Pretty much everything is the exact opposite of what you’ve asserted. I believe you are trolling with this, but I’ve indulged for the sake of lurkers actually interested in this examination.
"
