On Wed, 16 Sep 2015, Jonathan Valiente wrote:

> No trolling, perhaps I should exchange the word 'true' for 'pure'?..I
> dunno.

not at all, pure is even worst :^) it has even racist traits in some
contexts. a clear trait in anarchist philosophy is the criticism of
purity and the question of truth. its in the ethymology itself: an-arche
means without an origin... it questions religious beliefs, central
powers and authority, patriarchy and, allow me the free interpretation,
the naive tendency of men to ask "who started the war" - as if it would
matter for anyone to find a solution for peace...

> Although, according to the paraphrased definition you presented, I
> don't fall under the umbrella of anarchism as I do believe in
> universal truths or in other words, universal optimals (even if the
> optimals are somewhat evasive to human definition). Injustice is a
> great place to start and extrapolate from :)

... injustice is a process, not a cause - and yes, injustice is common
ground. the debate on universalism is long and tedious, but you did hit
the spot, it is about that. While I do understand the need for
(secularized) universals, well argued by restectable philosophers as
alasdair mcintyre, I still don't agree with them - and him. Which may
make me an anarchist and/or libertarian in this context of discussion.

> BUT, I do relish in the deeds of Assange, Snowden, and Manning. I
> guess I'm all about challenging 'unrighteous' authority. You know,
> stickin it to the man. 

right on. yet beware that common enemies are never a long-standing
political strategy. It always comes to the point in which the power
vacuum gets filled by someone with less doubts about universals.
usually not an anarchist.

ciao