I never tried to analyze your beliefs. I was simply stating that you haven't yet provided your critique, so I'm interested to hear what it actually is.
The purpose of debate and discussion is both to change minds as well as provide understanding. In this case, the reason I was interested in discussing with you was to further understand your views.
Yes, postmodernism does destroy morality, meaning, beauty, etc. However, this does not make it a bourgeois formulation. As Nietzsche noted, morality is determined by those in power. The present moral framework of our world is inherently bourgeois because it was created to justify bourgeois enlightenment conceptions of equality, liberty, fraternity and other such pathetic bourgeois creations. The communist seeks to dissolve not only this moral structure but ALL moral structures, as moral structures inherently stratify desire and restrict action. Does this mean all is permitted? Yes. Does this mean all is promoted?
No. I think I speak for all insurrectionary communists when I say it is completely up to the individual, the egoist, to determine what is right and wrong for them. We will never claim that something is objectively right or wrong, indeed, we will deny such concepts are real at all. However, we continue to use these words to describe what we will and what we reject. We believe that external values are useless and should be disregarded when making judgements, and that instead the individual should refer to their own desires when making a judgement. Even then, we oppose strict and fixed judgements, instead embracing individualized, context-dependent choice.
Violent crime is not on the rise because of postmodernism, but because of postmodern capitalism. Capital has reached a stage in which old, enlightenment values and morality are no longer useful to it, and so it is doing away with them. It replaces them with productivist morality; a system in which something's worth is determined by how much it contributes to the growth of capital. It is frustration with this productivist morality that generates the mental health crisis which produces such rates of violent crime. This mental health crisis is defined by frustration, desperation, and anger which is being expressed through mass violence.
Communism, however, is the solution to this crisis. By dissolving all moralities, including that of capital, it frees desire and allows the individual to do whatever they wish. It is the segmented, divided world of capital which produces anticapitalist desire, and it is through directionless violence that this desire is being expressed. Communism instead arms this desire and points it towards capital itself, rather than towards it's victims.
You claim to support freeing desire, and yet simultaneously support organs. This indicates a fundamental contradiction: Organs repress and stratify desire, and it is their dissolution which frees desire. The purpose of organs is stratification. Organs are antithetical to your proposed profanity. Avant-garde free desire is indeed profane, but you are not a follower of profanity. The profane is that which is amoral, free and nomadic. In short, we agree with your analysis of the profane, but view your 'revolutionary anarchism' as antithetical to it, considering it supports organs, narratives and morality.
While I recognize you are not interested in debate, I thought I'd at least provide my two cents. Thank you for explaining your views, and one last thing: By avoiding debate, do we not become static and unchanging? If there is no discussion, there can be no fluidity, no change. By believing you cannot change other's minds, you also close your own off to change.