I'm glad I found this question. This is only a partial expression (my $.01?) of what I perceive.
There's a quote of Einstein's which despite its perceived tiredness I think is apt in reading emile's posts on @news: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
I feel emile is pointing this out on a very deep level, particularly if 'make total destroy' is based in the same worldview as that which has made-the-total-destruction, the logic(s) of submission, we face everyday as unquestioned technophilia, determinism, progress, reductionism within which 'self' is understood as a localized object wherein power originates. If 'make-total-destroy' remains yet another expression of the very same conditions anarchists fight, then the results will be more of the same.
Mach's principle (roughly), that the dynamics of participants (you, I, that oak, this cat, etc) condition the dynamics of the space they are included in while simultaneously the space of inclusion condition the participants, is a recognition of an old, inclusionary worldview which most, if not all, peoples were habituated. By 'habituated' I'm indicating more a sense of the wholeness of 'habitat' than simply a measured routine. The sense of self is far more one of a whirl in moving water than a particular, localized, self-powering, thing in empty space.
This challenges our very language, perception and worldview within which many of our deepest notions of morality, evaluations of 'good' and 'evil,' self-responsibility, accountability are grounded. It may be obvious that not only current institutions and power dynamics come into question, but also any 'alternative' blueprints for future activity and social relations based upon the same fucking cartographic representations will as well. The latter would simply be...insanity.
emile simply asks, as far as I can tell, that we look, listen, and open ourselves to that which is closest to us, the dynamism, flow, and interdependence of fluid-forms we misread currently as separable 'beings (things)' in empty, unqualified space. Also, learning to speak in ways which open the possibility for the re-emergence (though different than before) of what sustained our 'kind' for far longer than any 'civilized' views have. An increase of verbs, for instance.
This language may come out as clumsy, like a new-born foal, within our current mode of 'English' which expresses an ever increasing fragmentation of independent 'things' through nounification in order to produce, exploit, and dominate all forms of moving expression by way of idealizing what 'they could/should be' according to the most common characteristics shared (as 'species,' for example). What this has fostered, and continues to foster, is a belief in which our ideals and valuations are primary and should be considered over the relational dynamism within which 'we' have no choice in participating and even suicide offers no sanctuary.
At the end of the proverbial day we who desire the dynamism we loosely name 'anarchy' have to ask ourselves if our current language/worldview can speak to those needs/desires. How does, if it all, the subject-verb-predicate structure dictate the force of those desires? How does our notion of 'cause' as an independent occurrence stifle, if at all, any real change in our conditions? In sum, I think this partly describes what 'emile' is talking about and I feel it's very important if not always easy to read.
edit for grammar and ease of reading.