One critique of anarchism comes down one to metaphysics. As a movement there is nothing tethering anarchism (in its various forms) to reality. No culture, no legs to stand on, a verbose and detached intellectualism (ironically akin to that of the petty bourgeoisie) and thin moralist narratives run wild. We have Jesters, we have scribes and scholars but what we lack are kings. Not kings in the sense of despotic rulers of course. No, anything of that nature is clearly antithetical to our way. No Gods. No Masters. No Slaves. This still doesn’t change the fact that anarchism lacks an overman. A new virulent breed divorced the trappings of antiquated ideas about “the working class” and romanticized stories of the CNT in revolutionary Catalonia (which have long since passed away and offer no substance in today’s world. I would even go so far to say that we owe no loyalty to the dead…) Fortunately there is a fraction in our midst who are able to look past this and recognize our need for sovereign individual(s). Kings and warlords which through self struggle and rigorous discipline have become so hyper aware of themselves and the material conditions they live in that they no longer feel the need to fight, only to dominate their own minds, exert their will to power on themselves as sovereign individuals and by peeling away the festering layers of the state allow themselves to experience the liberation that this “Gnostic Awakening” brings quietly and with dignity. Of all the great thinkers who played their parts in developing egoism as a philosophical discipline, Ernst Junger’s “Anarch” is the first to come to mind that paints a picture of the spirit of this liberated individual might look like.
“They found no mischief in me. I remained normal, however deeply they probed. And also straight as an arrow. To be sure, normality seldom coincides with straightness. Normalcy is the human constitution; straightness is logical reasoning. With its help, I could answer satisfactorily. In contrast, the human element is at once so general and so intricately encoded that they fail to perceive it, like the air that they breathe. Thus they were unable to penetrate my fundamental structure, which is anarchic.”
“That sounds complicated, but it is simple, for everyone is anarchic; this is precisely what is normal about us. Of course, the anarch is hemmed in from the first day by father and mother, by state and society. Those are prunings, tappings of the primordial strength, and nobody escapes them. One has to resign oneself. But the anarchic remains, at the very bottom, as a mystery, usually unknown even to its bearer. It can erupt from him as lava, can destroy him, liberate him. Distinctions must be made here: love is anarchic, marriage is not. The warrior is anarchic, the soldier is not. Manslaughter is anarchic, murder is not. Christ is anarchic, Saint Paul is not. Since, of course, the anarchic is normal, it is also present in Saint Paul, and sometimes it erupts mightily from him. Those are not antitheses but degrees. The history of the world is moved by anarchy. In sum: the free human being is anarchic, the anarchist is not.”
– Eumeswil, Page 41
The Anarch is, on the surface indistinguishable from any other lay-person. They do not indulge in long winded discussions in radical debate circles, nor do they participate in the idpol wars but keep their rebellion confined to their core. The Anarch is not allured by any cause. They see concepts that both hinder and enrich the human experience for what they are and are content to watch, to listen. Content to be at one with their inherent nature, a design far preceding our evolution. A carnal desire against all external authority.