You'd think so, but I think of two counterexamples.
In the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, the Republican side was a coalition of Communists and Anarchists. Yes, there was a major anarchist labor union, anarchist military units, and anarchist generals. And they had a specific goal -- they wanted to defeat the Nationalists, and they wanted to implement anarcho-syndicalism (rule by self-governing, autonomous groups of workers).
The other organized anarchists that spring to mind at the violent anarchists in anti-WTO/anti-globalization protests, like the Battle of Seattle in 1999. These "Black Flag Anarchists" seem to plan ahead on what targets they want to attack, and what tactics they will use to counter police tactics.
Congradulations, you just picked two of the three concrete examples that inspired my comments. Even a cursory discussion of these examples may go beyond the rules of the forum, but I will first note that the structure and content of the bolded sentences in 'counter-example' almost exactly parallels the structure content of the sentences you quote.
As for the Battle of Seattle, one safer direction this would lead us in would be a discussion of the military value of bottom up organization. While I don't want to get into this deeply either, in a brief overly simplified way, there are two ways to 'organize' a response in a battle. Most militaries have a chain of command, with an authoritarian leader, and he analyzes the situation and says, "A,B,C,D...X,Y,Z go here", and then each leader under him in turn gives commands to the units under him, all the way down to the leader of individual soldiers who manages there disposition. This works really well but requires an extremely high degree of organization and professionalism. If your troops lack organization and professionalism, there is another method that works almost as well and in some cases better. Everyone takes it on themselves to listen and without orders goes to the sound of battle by whatever means they can devise. You'll end up with the same appearance of coordination, and in some cases individual acts of coordination, without an organization and even often without prior planning.
To claim that this latter, 'bottom up' approach is organized in any normal sense is to deny that you can be anything but organized. And the anti-government units (I can't call them anarchists, because that's not diverse enough of a description) in the Battle of Seattle weren't even animated by a single axiomatic principle.
I would argue that any reasonably well thought out Chaotic society would exibit this bottom up approach to some degree, and that Lolth therefore ought not to be the top down controller that she is portrayed as if you want to have Lolth be CE or to have the society she encourages be CE.
I can't think of an example of this. I'm not aware of government-backed anarchists. The Republicans in the Spanish Civil War did have support from the Soviet Union, but unsurprisingly, the support went mostly to the Communist factions, not the Anarchist ones.
Digging into the funding of any large US anarchist organization, and you'll ultimately going to find money from somebodies secret police, either directly in that the organization is a front group (of a front group of a front group), or indirectly, in that for the purpose of achieving certain desired goals that group has partnered with a group (for example outsourced media releases, coordinating efforts, or sign production for a protest) which recieves direct funding from some governmental front group. Often the aims of the financial backers would be abhorrent to those that recieve the funds.
And I'm sure the same sort of thing flows the other way as well, in as much as for example, some of the 11 or so disparate political groups on the anti-government side of the current Libyan civil war have quasi-anarchist aims (distributing ownership of the national oil company amongst the citizens, liberalization of the societies social mores, etc.) and are probably also recieving funding directly from one or more governments at least some of which have the actual aim of negotiating favorable trade agreements or more direct usury of the oil by foreign corporations.
And I've probably already said more than I should even with this cursory discussion of the problem, so I'll stop there unsatisfying innuendo though it may be.
This reminds me of the "Chewbacca Defense", used by animated Johnny Cochrane in an episode of South Park.
I don't understand how it applies to what I'm saying. Are you saying that any claim that two things don't make sense is made for inherently hypocritical and deceptive reasons? I don't want to launch into a detailed discussion of the incoherence between the two trilogies to prove my point, but a simple high level overview would be, "In the Prequel trilogy, Anakin's moral fall is the result of his attachment to his loved ones. In the original trilogy, Anakin's moral redemption is the result of his attachment to his loved ones."
A paladin being along for the ride wouldn't have changed the party's approach, I think.
