ANARCHISM

ANARCHISM
Page 5

NATIONAL-ANARCHISM

TROY SOUTHGATE: TRANSCENDING THE BEYOND FROM THIRD POSITION TO NATIONAL-ANARCHISM

NATIONAL-ANARCHISM:
BEYOND THE FASCISM OF THE RIGHT AND THE DOGMATISM OF THE LEFT

BLACK CROWN & BLACK ROSE - Anarcho-Monarchism & Anarcho-Mysticism

TROY SOUTHGATE:

TRANSCENDING THE BEYOND

FROM THIRD POSITION TO NATIONAL-ANARCHISM
Man’s obsession with trinitarian concepts has lasted for thousands of years. Indeed, when presented with two distinct choices - both of which are considered inadequate - we often look for a third alternative. In the late sixth century BC, the famous Buddhist sage, Prince Gautama, rejected a life of opulent complacency and experimented with self-disciple and denial. Consequently, after driving himself to the very brink of starvation the Prince realised that there was ‘a middle way’ beyond both luxury and asceticism. In this case, it was the path of meditation and detachment, a process in which both lifestyles were transcended and overcome.

An interesting parallel can be drawn between the example of Gautama’s rejection of hereditary privilege and the search for an alternative to Capitalism during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The ‘solution’, as we know only too well, was Communism. In fact the last century may be rightly perceived as having been a furious historical battleground for two highly adversarial and bitterly-opposed ideologies. But as Hilaire Belloc observed in The Restoration of Property over sixty years ago, the differences between the two are not as distinct or clear-cut as their supporters often like to contend: ‘The only economic difference between a herd of subservient Russians and a mob of free Englishmen pouring into a factory of a morning is that the latter are exploited by private profit, the former by the State in communal fashion. The motive of the Russian masters is to establish a comfortable bureaucracy for themselves and their friends out of the proletariat labour. The motive of the English masters is to increase their private fortunes out of proletariat labour. But we want something different from either’. Thus Communism is considered, not as the antidote, but as a symptom and a product of Capitalism. Belloc’s own quest for a genuine alternative to both Capitalism and Communism was represented by The Distributist League, which he founded in 1936 with G.K. Chesterton. Both were famous converts to Catholicism and were inspired by Rerum Novarum, a timely encyclical in which Pope Leo XIII replied to the challenge of atheistic Communism by proposing that property be distributed more fairly and workers treated with more dignity. As we shall see below, Belloc and Chesterton were to become two of the chief ideologues of the new Third Position.

By the late-1970s Britain’s largest Far Right organisation, the National Front (NF), had experienced an unprecedented growth spurt. Virtually indistinguishable from the more mainstream Conservative Party in that it defended family values, law and order, capital punishment and several other Right-wing policies, the NF became a household name due to its opposition to multi-racialism and support for the compulsory repatriation of all non-white immigrants. By 1979, however, the Party was heavily defeated at the ballot box after Margaret Thatcher had herself expressed one or two outspoken comments about the growing immigration problem. As a result, most NF supporters left for the comparatively less extreme realms of the Centre Right, although, predictably, Mrs. Thatcher’s pledge to tighten up on immigration was never practicably consolidated. From that point onwards the NF went through a period of factionalism, as the complicated mish-mash of ideologies which for so long had marched beneath the same banner now resulted in a bitter struggle between reactionary conservatives, blatant neo-nazis and revolutionaries. NF luminaries like Martin Webster and John Tyndall were ousted from the Party in the early-1980s, clearing the way for a new up-and-coming generation of young activists; men like Derek Holland, Nick Griffin, Patrick Harrington and Graham Williamson. These individuals had been motivated by ‘third way’ organisations abroad, not least by Italy’s Terza Pozitione (Third Position) and the exiled Roberto Fiore. The strategy of tension - Anno di Piombo - which had characterised Italian politics during the 1970s had led to the development of the Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari (Armed Revolutionary Nuclei), and demonstrators had been seen on the streets bearing placards in simultaneous praise of both Hitler and Mao. Many NF members had also been inspired by Otto Strasser, a former member of the German National-Socialist Workers Party who had fought with Hitler over the latter’s betrayal of the NSDAP’s more socialistic tenets. So, for the NF, this was to be a new era for revolutionary politics. One in which the boundaries of ‘left’ and ‘right’ were to be totally rejected and redefined.

In 1983 the British NF began to publish a series of revolutionary magazines, entitled Rising: Booklet For The Political Soldier, in which detailed articles were given over to the twin concepts of political sacrifice and struggle. Meanwhile, Derek Holland’s pamphlet, The Political Soldier, inspired yet another generation of new activists and was heavily influenced by the Italian philosopher Julius Evola. By 1986 the NF claimed to have finally purged its ranks of ‘Tories’ and ‘reactionaries’ and, much to the chagrin of the traditional Left, was soon forging alliances with Black separatist organisations like Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam and commending the ‘third way’ stance of Khomeini’s Iran. Indeed, whilst the works of Belloc and Chesterton were used to provide the NF with a unique economic platform, the organisation was also advocating Popular Rule, an interesting socio-political theory in which the structure of British society would become so decentralised that it would come to resemble that of Colonel Qathafi’s Libya. Not culturally, but in terms of establishing street, area and regional committees through which power could be decisively channelled up from the grass roots. This, of course, was in stark contrast to the NF’s former dependence upon the electoral voting system. The NF, in awe of its Libyan counterparts, was now distributing copies of Qathafi’s Green Book and happily chanting the mantra ‘no representation without participation’. As a consequence, therefore, the NF’s rejection of the ballot box confirmed its inevitable admittance into the revolutionary domain of extra-parliamentary politics. The movement went on to express its support for regional independence, European solidarity, positive anti-racism and co-operation with Black and Asian communities residing in England.

These were exciting times for supporters of Revolutionary Nationalism, but the personality clashes which tend to prevail in all political circles eventually tore the organisation apart during the Autumn of 1989. On one side were gathered the supporters of Derek Holland, Colin Todd, Nick Griffin and Roberto Fiore, all of whom were involved in the establishment of a new rural project in northern France. On the other were Patrick Harrington, Graham Williamson and David Kerr, who believed that the administrative core of the organisation should remain in the British Isles. Holland, Todd, Griffin and Fiore all left to form the International Third Position (ITP), whilst Harrington and the remaining supporters of the NF disbanded the movement in March 1990 and formed Third Way. But for those who believed that the revolutionary dynamism of the late-1980s could somehow be recreated, it was to end in disappointment and dejection. Third Way became far more conservative by supporting anti-federalist and ‘save the pound’ campaigns, now portraying itself as ‘the radical centre’. The ITP, on the other hand, tried to influence traditional Catholics grouped around The Society of St. Pius X, and - to the horror of the overwhelming majority of its membership - took the disastrous road towards reactionary fascism. So whilst one segment of the old NF had become ‘respectable’ and centrist, the leaders of the other were espousing the principles of Mussolini, Petain and Franco. For the ITP, the inevitable spilt came in September 1992.

By this time I had been personally involved with the NF - and, consequently, the ITP - since joining as a teenager in 1984. Throughout those years I had served as Regional Organiser with both Sussex NF and the Tunbridge Wells branch of the ITP, publishing magazines such as The Kent Crusader, Surrey Action, Eastern Legion and Catholic Action. Combined with Northern Rising (published by the ITP’s Yorkshire and Lancashire branches), these publications comprised five-fifths of the organisation’s literary output. When the ITP virtually disintegrated in 1992, these magazines all withdrew their support. The ITP, meanwhile, was left with Final Conflict, comprising a mixture of skinhead youth culture and Christian bigotry.
The split occurred for a variety of reasons, most notably the fact that the ITP had rejected the internal cadre structure which had been used to such great effect during the NF period. Coupled with the fact that Derek Holland and several others had left the country and were now completely disinterested in the Third Positionist struggle in England, Roberto Fiore was attacked by myself and many others for his involvement in a ruthlessly Capitalist enterprise which operated from Central London. Several outgoing ITP activists also accused Holland and Fiore of stealing many thousands of pounds they had invested in property based within the group’s rural enclave in northern France. But the most decisive factor of all, however, was the ITP leadership’s increasing obsession with Catholicism and its gradual descent into the reactionary waters of neo-fascism.

From the tattered remains of the ITP came a new independence organisation, the English Nationalist Movement (ENM). New attempts were made to restate the principles of the Third Position, and ENM publications like The Crusader and Catalyst attacked both Hitler and Mussolini and preferred to emulate home-grown English socialists like Robert Owen, William Cobbett, Robert Blatchford and William Morris. This was combined with a call to arms. The ENM also campaigned against Unionism, advocating the break-up of the British Isles into seven distinct nations: England, Scotland, Wales, Ulster, Ireland, Mannin (Isle of Man) and Kernow (Cornwall). Meanwhile, its publishing service, The Rising Press, distributed booklets and pamphlets covering a whole range of topics, including works by Otto and Gregor Strasser, Corneliu Codreanu and Colonel Qathafi.

In 1998 the ENM changed its name to the National Revolutionary Faction and began to call for armed insurrection against the British State in even stronger terms. A series of detailed pamphlets and internal bulletins were disseminated amongst Nationalists across the length and breadth of the country, seeking to end the British National Party’s (BNP) obsession with marches and elections. The revamped organisation also forged contacts with like-minded Third Positionist groups abroad, such as Nouvelle Resistance (France), the American Front, Spartacus (Canada), the Canadian Front, Alternativa Europea (Spain), National Destiny (New Zealand), Devenir (Belgium), Rivolta (Italy), Free Nationalists (Germany) and the National Bolshevik Party (Russia). National Bolshevism is a concept which seeks to establish an alliance between East and West, and has been around for many years. Its earliest supporters were men like Arthur Moeller van den Bruck and Ernst Junger, both of whom tried desperately to unite Germany with Russia. National Bolshevism today is mainly associated with the contemporary Russian thinker, Alexander Dugin, and has become one of the NRF’s main interests. Not least because the NRF supports the creation of a decentralised Eurasian bloc in defiance of American hegemony.

In recent years the NRF has rejected Third Positionism and now describes itself as a National-Anarchist movement. In other words, whilst Third Positionists are committed to going beyond Capitalism and Communism, National-Anarchists have taken things one step further by actually transcending the very notion of beyond. According to the well-known Anarchist thinker, Hakim Bey, writing in Millennium (1996): "Five years ago it still remained possible to occupy a third position in the world, a neither/nor of refusal or slyness, a realm outside the dialectic". He goes on to suggest that "Where there is no second, no opposition, there can be no third, no neither/nor. So the choice remains: either we accept ourselves as the ‘last humans’, or else we accept ourselves as the opposition." This has led the NRF to praise Anarchist thinkers like Bakunin and Proudhon, as well as to reject the concept of the State and call for independent enclaves "in which National-Anarchists can live according to their own principles and ideals". National-Anarchists also declare that even after the demise of Capitalism they neither hope nor desire to establish a national infrastructure, believing that like-minded and pragmatic individuals must set up and maintain organic communities of their own choosing. This, of course, means that whilst the NRF retains its vision of Natural Order and racial separatism it no longer wishes to impose its beliefs on others. The group has also been involved in ecological campaigns, anti-Capitalist demonstrations and animal liberation circles.

The NRF has also been heavily influenced by Alternative Green, a group set up in the wake of Richard Hunt’s resignation as Editor from the leftist newspaper, Green Anarchist. Hunt’s unique economic analysis of the Western core’s exploitation of the Third World periphery, as well as his wholesale rejection of the division of labour, has led to an open-minded alliance between Alternative Green, the NRF, Nationale-Anarchie (German National-Anarchists), the Wessex Regionalists, Oriflamme (medievalists), Albion Awake (a Christian-Anarchist organisation), the Anarchic Movement (influenced by both Junger and Evola) and various other political groupuscles which all firmly believe that opponents of Capitalism from across the board must come together in order to exchange ideas and strategies. In May 2000 these elements staged the first Anarchist Heretics’ Fair in Brighton, launching a new political initiative called Beyond Left-Right. This has since been attacked by a variety of ‘anarcho-dogmatists’ on the Left, including the International Workers of the World (IWW) and Anti-Fascist Action (AFA). To date, however, neither of these organisations has attempted to explain precisely why the NRF or its allies deserve the ‘fascist’ epithet or deserve their threats of violence and intimidation. Furthermore, fewer still have tried to define the actual meaning of ‘fascism’ itself.

Given that ideologies such as National-Socialism, National Communism and National Bolshevism have each attempted to combine two seemingly diverse and contradictory opposites, the arrival of National-Anarchism always seemed inevitable. But what distinguishes the NRF from its counterparts within the prevailing left-right spectrum, however, is the fact that it is seeking to create a synthesis.

Indeed, Synthesis is the name of a new online magazine established by the Cercle de la Rose Noire, through which NRF thinkers, Evolians and prominent ex-members of the now defunct White Order of Thule (WOT) are promoting the three-fold strategy of ‘Anarchy’, ‘Occulture’ and ‘Metapolitics’. The Circle’s website,http://obsidian-blade.com/synthesis, has presented National-Anarchists with an esoteric perspective, becoming a huge counter-cultural resource from which articles, essays, poetry, interviews and reviews can be easy obtained.

The similarities between the strategy of National-Anarchism and the triadic analysis of the famous German philosopher, Georg Friedrich Hegel, are tremendous. Hegel believed that when confronted with the ineffectiveness of a thought or affirmation (thesis) and its subsequent negation (antithesis), the result is a yet further negation as the two original precepts are united and thus resolved at a much higher level (synthesis). Once this process takes place, the synthesis itself can then be negated by another antithesis, until the arrival of a second synthesis starts the whole process over again. This brings us back to our long and repeated flirtations with trinitarianism. When considered from this perspective, National-Anarchism appears to be the next logical next towards the raising of
mankind’s spiritual and intellectual consciousness.

TROY SOUTHGATE FOR PRAVDA.RU

Troy South gate is an editor of the SYNTHESIS, an intellectual and cultural journal devoted to Anarchy, Occulture and Metapolitics. He contributed this article to Pravda.ru.

NATIONAL-ANARCHISM:
BEYOND THE FASCISM OF THE RIGHT AND THE DOGMATISM OF THE LEFT

IN April 2000 a unique debate was launched on the Internet as a means of introducing the ideas of National-Anarchism to the world for the very first time. The news was greeted with typical hysteria by those on both the Right and Left of the political spectrum. Indeed, whilst the former described us as 'an alliance of homosexuals and satanists' the latter insinuated that we are 'neo-nazis' and 'homophobes'. Thus we find ourselves denounced by the dogmatic Left-Anarchists of the IWW and Freedom Press on the one hand, and reactionary fascists like the British National Party and International Third Position on the other. The following question and answer format should help dispel the myths surrounding the whole ethos of National-Anarchism: A liberating and revolutionary force for anti-Capitalism in the twenty-first century.

Q. Why 'national' anarchism? Surely nationalism is incompatible with anarchic principles?

A. National-Anarchists do not support nationalism in the sense that we look to artificial nation-states or borders and boundaries. In a realistic sense we are Indo-Europeans and therefore part of an ethnic heritage that includes not only Europe itself but also countries like Iran, Afghanistan, India and Tibet. Therefore we base our 'national' outlook on a much broader framework, not on the limited parochial attitudes of nineteenth-century imperialism. When we speak of nationhood we are referring to its tribal and organic implications.

Q. So do you support some kind of Eurasian superstate?

A. No. We firmly believe in political, social and economic decentralisation. In other words, we wish to see a positive downward trend whereby all bureaucratic concepts such as the UN, NATO, the EU, the World Bank and even nation-states like England and Germany are eradicated and consequently replaced by autonomous village-communities.

Q. Are National-Anarchists racist?

A. Certainly not. On the contrary, our vision is based upon the realities of self-determination for all peoples and not on mindless racial hatred towards others. Furthermore, we do not subscribe to a supremacist agenda or wish to enforce our worldview on others. National-Anarchists are racial separatists and wish to build links with like-minded individuals and organisations regardless of their racial or ethnic background. This is part of our plan to re-establish the Natural Order, of which humanity is an essential part.

Q. Natural Order? But surely this is a man-made concept devised by those with a given point of view?

A. Natural Order is not a half-baked political or theological manifesto like those conceived by Christian theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas, indeed, it relates to the fields of ecological and environmental preservation. Racial miscegenation, for example, is viewed by National-Anarchists as something which runs contrary to nature. Similarly, we regard issues like human cloning, euthanasia, homosexuality, genetically-modified foodstuffs, vivisection and abortion in the same way.

Q. So do you plan to outlaw mixed-race relationships, homosexuality and abortion?

A. Not at all. These are issues which must be decided by those concerned, although we do remain adament that such practices remain outside of our own naturally-based Anarchic communities.

Q. But what if people disagree with your ideas?

A. Fine. We have no problem with that. As long as they do not prevent us from occupying our own space and land in which to live according to our own principles and beliefs. Those who attempt to interfere with our way of life or prevent us from realising our distinct vision based upon Natural Order are nothing short of fascistic and authoritarian. We do not wish to persecute others or bend them to our will. Let them found their own communities.

Q. How do National-Anarchists intend to pursue their objectives?

A. In years to come the Capitalist System will begin to disintegrate in the way that the Roman Empire planted the seeds of its own destruction by initiating a policy of gradual expansionism and the control of the periphery. Therefore we must hasten its demise by encouraging revolution on the periphery and, thus, depriving the urban centres of their resources. Once we enpower the exploited peoples in the so-called Third World, we can finally cut off the tentacles of Capitalism one by one until the very cores of political and economic power are completely eradicated. Destroy from within and create from without, that is the solution.

Q. The centres of power are mainly in Europe and North America, so what will become of the West?

A. Who cares! The whole concept of Western civilisation has been built on exploitation and greed. Moreover, it is an historical progression which has taken mankind away from its natural state and led to the enrichment of the few at the expense of the many.

Q. But surely this process will lead to technological regression?

A. Of course. National-Anarchists are not opposed to technology per se - or at least those forms which do not harm the environment - but it remains a fact that once the internationalist system begins to wither away and people start to return to a more natural lifestyle, the factories will stand idle and therefore nobody will be on hand to produce computers, televisions and other such items. People will be forced to live without cars and supermarkets, chat shows and telephones, vibrators and central heating. Eventually this will lead to a more leisurely way of life, quite simply because hunter-gatherers work on average something like two hours a day in order to satisfy their basic needs.

Q. What is the way forward for National-Anarchists?

A. We will continue to forge useful links between all opponents of Big Business and globalisation, in the hope that eventually we will become one of the movers and shapers of the developing anti-Capitalist movement. So in this regard we extend the hand of friendship and co-operation to all like-minded peoples both in Europe and around the world.

Anarchy-Fascism

By Bernardo Sena

Many would question the merger between both ideologies but in reality both Fascism and Anarchy are extreme social philosophies which are technically for the same ideals in life.

Anarchy - A non-political platform which derives from the "individual against the point of authority" idea. Initially it is a philosophy which supports violence against those in power in order to achieve a peaceful existence in which individual man can live in free will and without the restraint of social laws or order. Anarchy can work well if adopted in the proper way. It is a good doctrine for individuals who wish to live in a spiritually evolved state of Nature. But this will only be achieved once complete chaos an destruction ensues from lack of authority, which inadvertently would be the typical state of Nature put forth by Thomas Hobbes in which everyone having no restrictions upon them would ignorantly use their natural freedom for their own benefit in which to murder, steal and so forth. Therefore it is through natural selection in which only the intelligent minority would survive in such a state of Nature provided by Anarchy. And it is through this complicated and undesirable manner in which society could achieve a better form of life without the ignorant masses which would be easily done away without due to Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest".

Fascism - A philosophical and realistic perspective to society in which the majority are considered ignorant and thus must be either overthrown or controlled in a ruthless manner so as to preserve the further evolution of intelligence within the state and the progress of said state. Unlike other ideologies, Fascism is a more brutal and ruthless form in which extreme order has to be maintained and respected in order for everyone to live peacefully and regulated according to their acceptance of living under the conditional laws of the Fascist state. This is another example of Thomas Hobbes' reasoning who explains that in order to survive outside of a state of Nature whereupon any individual may kill or rob you, you may give up certain unreasonable and non-important liberties in order to gain security and prosperity. Fascism unlike Anarchy believes in strict regulation and preservation of its people so as the there is nothing against or outside the state that will lead to its downfall. This of course in terms of Fascism is the belief that the intelligent individuals who accept the Fascist rule will evolve and become more enlightened through this authority and thus acquire further acknowledgement of their life. Fascism forces the segregation between the intelligent from the malignant ignorant. And it is only through Fascism in which the ignorant can be "schooled" to understand and gain more knowledge rather than waste their lives away in utter freedom in which they abuse their powers.

Anarcho-Fascism - A form of Fascism in which the individual believes that only when complete Anarchy has taken place then a more Utopian society can be achieved with the remaining strong survivors. Thus once chaos has overtaken society the intelligent and strong-willed can combine forces to create a decent and powerful Fascist state.

Fasco-Anarchism - A form of Anarchy which is followed by Anarchists who support Fascist practice in order to achieve their chosen state of Nature. When Fascism has taken hold of the ignorance of the majority and regulated society, only then will the Anarchists who wish to truly live under their own terms have the liberty to leave the state and live within their state of Nature without the hindrance of a mass onslaught of chaos which would normally follow an Anarchist revolution. This is a more peaceful and agreeable alternative which would be a peaceful co-existence.

Anarcho-Fascism and Fasco-Anarchism are the merger between both extreme radical ideologies who are unbelievably the closest to each other than any other political ideology. People compare Fascism more closely to National Socialism as well as Anarchy to Socialism or Communism. If anything these are completely at fault in regards to the specific essence of both Fascist and Anarchist ideologies. Unlike Nazism, Communism and Socialism, Fascism and Anarchy aren't at all political. If anything Anarchy and Fascism are more of a social doctrine or philosophy for life seeing as they both reject politics. Thus those supposed "anarchists" and "fascists" who voice their opinions and ideas today yet have complete disregard for the true facts behind both ideologies not only defame the original platform of the philosophies at hand but put those who follow the true form of these philosophical platform involved in the same category as them. This then causes a miss-education of Anarchy and Fascism amongst people who lose insight on the true format and believe instead that Fascism and Anarchy are merely violent approaches to life simply because they are more extreme in their ideas.

But with increasing tension between the Left and Right Bloc in the political arena (especially in Europe and Asia) due to the corrupt Socialist/Democratic politicians, more people are turning to the radical philosophical ideals of Fascism and Anarchy. Both ideologies in thought are considerably Evolutionist and in some degrees Fascism is more Futurist whereas Anarchy is Primitivist. But although they both put forward a practical philosophical approach to politics in present day they have a more radical approach in practice contrary to the more subtle and weak forms projected by other ideologies. This is because both Anarchy and Fascism require ACTION and instead of waiting and whining like most politicians do Fascists and Anarchists would rather act on impulse. The only difference is the manner in which both act through practice. Anarchists are more outspoken and active in the social arena, whilst Fascists remain more reserved and watchful. But in both ways Anarchists and Fascists are formidable brothers who are beginning to support one another for their causes seeing that they both are for the same ideals in life... only in a different aspect.

BLACK CROWN & BLACK ROSE

Anarcho-Monarchism & Anarcho-Mysticism

by Hakim Bey

IN SLEEP WE DREAM of only two forms of government--anarchy & monarchy. Primordial root consciousness understands no politics & never plays fair. A democratic dream? a socialist dream? Impossible.

Whether my REMs bring verdical near-prophetic visions or mere Viennese wish-fulfillment, only kings & wild people populate my night. Monads & nomads.

Pallid day (when nothing shines by its own light) slinks & insinuates & suggests that we compromise with a sad & lackluster reality. But in dream we are never ruled except by love or sorcery, which are the skills of chaotes & sultans.

Among a people who cannot create or play, but can only work, artists also know no choice but anarchy & monarchy. Like the dreamer, they must possess & do possess their own perceptions, & for this they must sacrifice the merely social to a "tyrannical Muse." Art dies when treated "fairly." It must enjoy a caveman's wildness or else have its mouth filled with gold by some prince. Bureaucrats & sales personnel poison it, professors chew it up, & philosophers spit it out. Art is a kind of byzantine barbarity fit only for nobles & heathens. If you had known the sweetness of life as a poet in the reign of some venal, corrupt, decadent, ineffective & ridiculous Pasha or Emir, some Qajar shah, some King Farouk, some Queen of Persia, you would know that this is what every anarchist must want. How they loved poems & paintings, those dead luxurious fools, how they absorbed all roses & cool breezes, tulips & lutes! Hate their cruelty & caprice, yes--but at least they were human. The bureaucrats, however, who smear the walls of the mind with odorless filth--so kind, so gemutlich--who pollute the inner air with numbness--they're not even worthy of hate. They scarcely exist outside the bloodless Ideas they serve.

And besides: the dreamer, the artist, the anarchist--do they not share some tinge of cruel caprice with the most outrageous of moghuls? Can genuine life occur without some folly, some excess, some bouts of Heraclitan "strife"? We do not rule--but we cannot & will not be ruled.

In Russia the Narodnik-Anarchists would sometimes forge a ukase or manifesto in the name of the Czar; in it the Autocrat would complain that greedy lords & unfeeling officials had sealed him in his palace & cut him off from his beloved people. He would proclaim the end of serfdom & call on peasants & workers to rise in His Name against the government.

Several times this ploy actually succeeded in sparking revolts. Why? Because the single absolute ruler acts metaphorically as a mirror for the unique and utter absoluteness of the self. Each peasant looked into this glassy legend & beheld his or her own freedom--an illusion, but one that borrowed its magic from the logic of the dream.

A similar myth must have inspired the 17th century Ranters & Antinomians & Fifth Monarchy Men who flocked to the Jacobite standard with its erudite cabals & bloodproud conspiracies. The radical mystics were betrayed first by Cromwell & then by the Restoration--why not, finally, join with flippant cavaliers & foppish counts, with Rosicrucians & Scottish Rite Masons, to place an occult messiah on Albion's throne?

Among a people who cannot conceive human society without a monarch, the desires of radicals may be expressed in monarchical terms. Among a people who cannot conceive human existence without a religion, radical desires may speak the language of heresy.

Taoism rejected the whole of Confucian bureaucracy but retained the image of the Emperor-Sage, who would sit silent on his throne facing a propitious direction, doing absolutely nothing. In Islam the Ismailis took the idea of the Imam of the Prophet's Household & metamorphosed it into the Imam-of- one's-own-being, the perfected self who is beyond all Law & rule, who is atoned with the One. And this doctrine led them into revolt against Islam, to terror & assassination in the name of pure esoteric self-liberation & total realization.

Classical 19th century anarchism defined itself in the struggle against crown & church, & therefore on the waking level it considered itself egalitarian & atheist. This rhetoric however obscures what really happens: the "king" becomes the "anarchist," the "priest" a "heretic." In this strange duet of mutability the politician, the democrat, the socialist, the rational ideologue can find no place; they are deaf to the music & lack all sense of rhythm. Terrorist & monarch are archetypes; these others are mere functionaries.

Once anarch & king clutched each other's throats & waltzed a totentanz--a splendid battle. Now, however, both are relegated to history's trashbin--has-beens, curiosities of a leisurely & more cultivated past. They whirl around so fast that they seem to meld together...can they somehow have become one thing, a Siamese twin, a Janus, a freakish unity? "The sleep of Reason..." ah! most desirable & desirous monsters!

Ontological Anarchy proclaims flatly, bluntly, & almost brainlessly: yes, the two are now one. As a single entity the anarch/king now is reborn; each of us the ruler of our own flesh, our own creations--and as much of everything else as we can grab & hold.

Our actions are justified by fiat & our relations are shaped by treaties with other autarchs. We make the law for our own domains--& the chains of the law have been broken. At present perhaps we survive as mere Pretenders--but even so we may seize a few instants, a few square feet of reality over which to impose our absolute will, our royaume. L'etat, c'est moi.

If we are bound by any ethic or morality it must be one which we ourselves have imagined, fabulously more exalted & more liberating than the "moralic acid" of puritans & humanists. "Ye are as gods"--"Thou art That."

The words monarchism & mysticism are used here in part simply pour epater those egalito-atheist anarchists who react with pious horror to any mention of pomp or superstition-mongering. No champagne revolutions for them!

Our brand of anti-authoritarianism, however, thrives on baroque paradox; it favors states of consciousness, emotion & aesthetics over all petrified ideologies & dogma; it embraces multitudes & relishes contradictions. Ontological Anarchy is a hobgoblin for BIG minds. The translation of the title (& key term) of Max Stirner's magnum opus as The Ego & Its Own has led to a subtle misinterpretation of "individualism." The English-Latin word ego comes freighted & weighed with freudian & protestant baggage. A careful reading of Stirner suggests that The Unique & His Own-ness would better reflect his intentions, given that he never defines the ego in opposition to libido or id, or in opposition to "soul" or "spirit." The Unique (der Einzige) might best be construed simply as the individual self.

Stirner commits no metaphysics, yet bestows on the Unique a certain absoluteness. In what way then does this Einzige differ from the Self of Advaita Vedanta? Tat tvam asi: Thou (individual Self) art That (absolute Self).

Many believe that mysticism "dissolves the ego." Rubbish. Only death does that (or such at least is our Sadducean assumption). Nor does mysticism destroy the "carnal" or "animal" self--which would also amount to suicide. What mysticism really tries to surmount is false consciousness, illusion, Consensus Reality, & all the failures of self that accompany these ills. True mysticism creates a "self at peace," a self with power. The highest task of metaphysics (accomplished for example by Ibn Arabi, Boehme, Ramana Maharshi) is in a sense to self-destruct, to identify metaphysical & physical, transcendent & immanent, as ONE. Certain radical monists have pushed this doctrine far beyond mere pantheism or religious mysticism. An apprehension of the immanent oneness of being inspires certain antinomian heresies (the Ranters, the Assassins) whom we consider our ancestors.

Stirner himself seems deaf to the possible spiritual resonances of Individualism--& in this he belongs to the 19th century: born long after the deliquescence of Christendom, but long before the discovery of the Orient & of the hidden illuminist tradition in Western alchemy, revolutionary heresy & occult activism. Stirner quite correctly despised what he knew as "mysticism," a mere pietistic sentimentality based on self-abnegation & world hatred. Nietzsche nailed down the lid on "God" a few years later. Since then, who has dared to suggest that Individualism & mysticism might be reconciled & synthesized?

The missing ingredient in Stirner (Nietzsche comes closer) is a working concept of nonordinary consciousness. The realization of the unique self (or ubermensch) must reverberate & expand like waves or spirals or music to embrace direct experience or intuitive perception of the uniqueness of reality itself. This realization engulfs & erases all duality, dichotomy, & dialectic. It carries with itself, like an electric charge, an intense & wordless sense of value: it "divinizes" the self.

Being/consciousness/bliss (satchitananda) cannot be dismissed as merely another Stirnerian "spook" or "wheel in the head." It invokes no exclusively transcendent principle for which the Einzige must sacrifice his/her own-ness. It simply states that intense awareness of existence itself results in "bliss"--or in less loaded language, "valuative consciousness." The goal of the Unique after all is to possess everything; the radical monist attains this by identifying self with perception, like the Chinese inkbrush painter who "becomes the bamboo," so that "it paints itself."

Despite mysterious hints Stirner drops about a "union of Unique-ones" & despite Nietzsche's eternal "Yea" & exaltation of life, their Individualism seems somehow shaped by a certain coldness toward the other. In part they cultivated a bracing, cleansing chilliness against the warm suffocation of 19th century sentimentality & altruism; in part they simply despised what someone (Mencken?) called "Homo Boobensis."

And yet, reading behind & beneath the layer of ice, we uncover traces of a fiery doctrine--what Gaston Bachelard might have called "a Poetics of the Other." The Einzige's relation with the Other cannot be defined or limited by any institution or idea. And yet clearly, however paradoxically, the Unique depends for completeness on the Other, & cannot & will not be realized in any bitter isolation.

The examples of "wolf children" or enfants sauvages suggest that a human infant deprived of human company for too long will never attain conscious humanity--will never acquire language. The Wild Child perhaps provides a poetic metaphor for the Unique-one--and yet simultaneously marks the precise point where Unique & Other must meet, coalesce, unify--or else fail to attain & possess all of which they are capable.

The Other mirrors the Self--the Other is our witness. The Other completes the Self--the Other gives us the key to the perception of oneness-of-being. When we speak of being & consciousness, we point to the Self; when we speak of bliss we implicate the Other.

The acquisition of language falls under the sign of Eros-- all communication is essentially erotic, all relations are erotic. Avicenna & Dante claimed that love moves the very stars & planets in their courses--the Rg Veda & Hesiod's Theogony both proclaim Love the first god born after Chaos. Affections, affinities, aesthetic perceptions, beautiful creations, conviviality--all the most precious possessions of the Unique-one arise from the conjunction of Self & Other in the constellation of Desire.

Here again the project begun by Individualism can be evolved & revivified by a graft with mysticism--specifically with tantra. As an esoteric technique divorced from orthodox Hinduism, tantra provides a symbolic framework ("Net of Jewels") for the identification of sexual pleasure & non- ordinary consciousness. All antinomian sects have contained some "tantrik" aspect, from the families of Love & Free Brethren & Adamites of Europe to the pederast sufis of Persia to the Taoist alchemists of China. Even classical anarchism has enjoyed its tantrik moments: Fourier's Phalansteries; the "Mystical Anarchism" of G. Ivanov & other fin-de-siÉcle Russian symbolists; the incestuous erotism of Arzibashaev's Sanine; the weird combination of Nihilism & Kali-worship which inspired the Bengali Terrorist Party (to which my tantrik guru Sri Kamanaransan Biswas had the honor of belonging)...

We, however, propose a much deeper syncretism of anarchy & tantra than any of these. In fact, we simply suggest that Individual Anarchism & Radical Monism are to be considered henceforth one and the same movement.

This hybrid has been called "spiritual materialism," a term which burns up all metaphysics in the fire of oneness of spirit & matter. We also like "Ontological Anarchy" because it suggests that being itself remains in a state of "divine Chaos," of all-potentiality, of continual creation.

In this flux only the jiva mukti, or "liberated individual," is self-realized, and thus monarch or owner of his perceptions and relations. In this ceaseless flow only desire offers any principle of order, and thus the only possible society (as Fourier understood) is that of lovers.

Anarchism is dead, long live anarchy! We no longer need the baggage of revolutionary masochism or idealist self- sacrifice--or the frigidity of Individualism with its disdain for conviviality, of living together--or the vulgar superstitions of 19th century atheism, scientism, and progressism. All that dead weight! Frowsy proletarian suitcases, heavy bourgeois steamer-trunks, boring philosophical portmanteaux--over the side with them!

We want from these systems only their vitality, their life- forces, daring, intransigence, anger, heedlessness--their power, their shakti. Before we jettison the rubbish and the carpetbags, we'll rifle the luggage for billfolds, revolvers, jewels, drugs and other useful items--keep what we like and trash the rest. Why not? Are we priests of a cult, to croon over relics and mumble our martyrologies?

Monarchism too has something we want--a grace, an ease, a pride, a superabundance. We'll take these, and dump the woes of authority & torture in history's garbage bin. Mysticism has something we need--"self-overcoming," exalted awareness, reservoirs of psychic potency. These we will expropriate in the name of our insurrection--and leave the woes of morality & religion to rot & decompose.

As the Ranters used to say when greeting any "fellow creature"--from king to cut-purse--"Rejoice! All is ours!"