PDA

View Full Version : New Metaphysics?



Jack
Thursday, March 27th, 2003, 12:22 PM
I'm wondering if it would be appropriate for a pan Aryan spiritual movement to develop its own metaphysical theory. I brought a book which had several (more than a dozen) of the Hindu Upanishads and while I found it interesting I don't quite think we can use the law of karma and Brahmin to underline our entire spiritual weltanshauung. Nothing against any "Hindus" here (Rahul has claimed that Hinduism doesn't exist?) but I do think we can learn a lot from it, I find it difficult to believe we can ressurect the entire ancient Aryan spirituality without constructing something new to fit an organised pan-white civilization.

I don't know how you guys feel about this and I have a few of my own ideas but I'll post them after I see how you feel about this idea.

Moody
Thursday, March 27th, 2003, 05:16 PM
I am responding to the question somewhat negatively.

1. Pan-Aryanism.

Those who are adherents to Aryanism today tend to be racialists, and therefore will not tolerate a pan-Aryanism [which will necessarily include an integrative alliance with coloured Hindus].

A true pan-Aryanism cannot be racialist in the accepted sense of the term amongst rank and file White Racial Nationalists.

Therefore, we have to think of a Western Aryanism: a White Aryan outlook, which can only be pan-White, but not pan-Aryan.

2. Metaphysics.

Now if we concentrate on the West, then we have to view Metaphysics within the ambit of the West [and leave aside the Metaphysics developed in Aryan India as racially incompatible].

It is clear to me that Metaphysics in the West came to an end with Nietzsche; the phase of some 2 millennia from Platonism to Nietzscheanism is exhausted.
God is Dead, and so is Metaphysics.

This is a huge problem for the White Aryan movement ...

Ederico
Thursday, March 27th, 2003, 06:37 PM
I tend to agree with Moody on this question, I find nothing objectionable in what he wrote from my position. I would like to jump into the discussion and I would like you to explain what is meant by Metaphysics. I find all Philosophy dead in the West, at least I have not heard of recent Philosophers in the West, we are engulfed by gradually degenerative Materialism which destroys anything which is of higher value like Spirituality and Philosophy. I found this definition of Metaphysics at http://www.yourdictionary.com :

Metaphysics
Philosophy: The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.

Is that what you intend by Metaphysics?

Jack
Thursday, March 27th, 2003, 09:28 PM
Is that what you intend by Metaphysics?

A general worldview of the foundations of reality that can tie in well with our spiritual racialism.

Rahul
Friday, March 28th, 2003, 04:05 PM
I think, it is very difficult, probably impossible. There are too many different world-views and all of them have still greater justifications for their own stands. And most of them do not see Gods as they existed or the best explanation for creating a sympathy and understanding of ancient mythos, symbols and conceptions.

We must not forget that far from having grown, since the days of our ancestors, we have lost much of the wealth of the Volkish world-view, which is essential to the race, the clan and the tribe.

That will always be the basic bulding block of our being.

Someone has to think about that and express thus accordingly.

Moody
Friday, March 28th, 2003, 04:07 PM
The definition given of 'metaphysics' by Jack above is what Aristotle called 'First Philosophy', in his treatise which is now called [erroneously] 'The Metaphysics'.

Because 'metaphysics' means something like 'beyond the physical' [literally meant as 'after' the book called 'the Physics'], confusion has set in, and most people mean a philosophy of the 'beyond', when they use the word Metaphysics.

It is that Platonic Metaphysics [Idealism, Theory of Forms etc.,] which is 'dead'.
I say this is a problem for Racial Nationalism because the latter is based in Idealism.

The outlook of 'First Philosophy', which was pioneered by the Presocratics and then eclipsed by Platonism returned with Nietzscheanism.

Nietzsche's 'Will to Power' is such a First Philosophy; however, I do not think it to be a suitable foundation for Spiritual Nationalism, which is Idealism.
Nietzsche's philosophy rejected all Idealism.

Jack
Saturday, March 29th, 2003, 02:08 PM
I think I've got a really good idea on how to build a metaphysic for spiritual racialism, but I'll wait to see if someone can think of an idea that might work. I do think Moody was correct when he said what we need to do is provide a foundation for a Western (or pan-European) Aryanism - I don't think people in the West can connect to India, even supposing we do go back to our own tradition.

Moody
Saturday, March 29th, 2003, 03:44 PM
Given the two versions of Metaphysics, it seems to me that only the Idealist one can be linked to Spiritual Nationalism and indeed to Tradition and Lore.

The version followed here of 'First Philosophy' is really in the domain of philosophy and science [see my thread on 'A Philosophy of Necessity' in the Philosophy forum].

A basic problem for Idealist Metaphysics is that it tends towards Universalism; in other words, it has an all-embracing propensity.

Ederico
Saturday, March 29th, 2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Moody Lawless
It is that Platonic Metaphysics [Idealism, Theory of Forms etc.,] which is 'dead'.
I say this is a problem for Racial Nationalism because the latter is based in Idealism.

The outlook of 'First Philosophy', which was pioneered by the Presocratics and then eclipsed by Platonism returned with Nietzscheanism.

Nietzsche's 'Will to Power' is such a First Philosophy; however, I do not think it to be a suitable foundation for Spiritual Nationalism, which is Idealism.
Nietzsche's philosophy rejected all Idealism.

It would really be great if you explained the main concepts of Platonic Metaphysics, Idealism, First Philosophy, and Nietzscheanism, and there relation to Racialism. That would help a lot.

Jack
Sunday, March 30th, 2003, 10:12 AM
Idealism: the theory that the ideal wields supremacy over the material. Marx said the other way around, which is Materialism by the Marxists. However, most modern racialists are also materialists - for them its all about genes, not spirit. Which is why I posed this question in the first place, because in my opinion whites aren't going to go to total war against other races in our borders over genes. We'll do it for God, for Fatherland, for Mother Europe, for the Spirit of the Age but we're the only race who won't spill blood without being told a reason why. Note we have to be LIED TO in order to go to war against Iraq.

First Philosophy is the basics of all philosophy - the underlying nature of reality, the relation of man's consciousness to reality (Cartesian dualism is interesting - it holds that man's consciousness does not exist within the universe, but his body is a window the soul looks through to exercise his will upon the universe - similar to a "ghost in the machine" sort of relationship), the origins (sometimes a philosophy's metaphysics will not deal with this - Objectivism is an example) of the universe, etc. You've got to have metaphysics before you can have anything else in a philosophy. In the current age Objectivist (or aristotelian) metaphysics is generally accepted - that what you can touch, smell, see, hear and taste is real, that your consciousness resides inside your head and you can identify things by using intuition and reason to discover the unchangable 'essence' of an object. This essence does not change, in Aristotelian philosophy, but all things move towards the ultimate expression of their essences.

Hegel took this and invented dialectical idealism, which the marxists later hijacked and flipped upside down. Hegel generally is not paid much attention to in the modern age. Hegel took the Aristotelian idea of essences and said that the world is essentially a war of ideas - that people create ideas, adopt those ideas and reality and modern politics is essentially the struggle of the fittest of ideals. He says that a Spirit is created by a few, expounded to the group, who assert their power over another group and that this is destiny. This worked brilliantly in service of the Prussians, when Hegel added the "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" trick. He said an idea is created, opposed by another idea and then both are beaten when a third idea rises out of the union of the higher truths of both of the competing ideals, and then the synthesis is opposed by an antithesis - and so on, all the time evolving towards the perfect ideal. Example - Nationalist capitalism is thesis, international Communism is antithesis, synthesis is National Socialism.

However, Hegel said the following - the idea of Greek and Roman aristocracy is opposed by Oriental despotism, and the synthesis is the Absolute State, which was best represented at the time by Prussia, and the idea of the Absolute State was perfection, therefore Prussia had the absolute edge over other European countries. The Absolute State is imbued with the Spirit of the Nation (see my explanation of how Hegel linked Aristotle's essence idea with his own dialectic idealism).

Now, on to Plato. Plato said there are two worlds - this world, which is constantly changing, decaying, and the world of the Forms. The world of the Forms is idealistic. The Forms are the absolute, perfect, unchangable ideas of how things are. They do not change, they are perfect. Things only exist and are identifiable so long as they adhere to the Form of that thing, so says Plato. Incidentally Plato's Form of Man is so similar to Nietzsche's Ubermensch its funny. Plato says the best state is that which achieves the Form of the State. BTW, Plato was also a eugenicist, a socialist and a racialist :) Since the Form of the State does not change, the best State is one that does not change. Therefore he pointed at Sparta and said that is the best State.

Plato said the best republic is made along strict class divisions - workers, soldiers, philosopher kings. Philosopher Kings are the elite who can percieve the perfect ideal Forms (hereforth called the Forms) of the State and Man. Soldiers are the warrior class who protect the State with their lives and are held to the State through the "Earthborn myth" (what Karl Popper calls it) - this is similar to the Motherland ideal built up by patriotism and runs similar to the Blood and Soil doctrine of German national socialism. The purpose of education is to discover the inner nature of each person and ensure that every man works according to his inner nature - if a man is assigned his class against his nature that results in injustice and the decline of the State from its perfect form - inevitably, the fall of the State. Communism is only supposed to work for the warrior class and the Philosopher King elite. The workers are merchants and other money making people. The purpose of Communism for the warrior class is to develop a sense of brotherhood and loyalty to the State. The purpose of Communism for the Philosopher King elite is to prevent capitalist style division of the elite which inevitably results in the decline of the State from its absolute form - in other words, decay and destruction. According to Plato, a State goes from Aristocracy (rule of an elite which works towards the achievement of noble deeds) to Oligarchy (capitalist elite which exists for money). This evolves into Democracy (degenerate mass rule) which collapses into Anarchy, which then turns into Tyranny. The State can be driven back to its absolute Form through the will of a person capable of percieving the Form of the State, which is an absolute perfect unchangable ideal that does not exist within material reality. The Philosopher Kings must rule because they are capable of percieving the Forms of all things which exist, and therefore capable of percieving the perfect ideal of Man which is what the warrior class are to be built into - the State is merely a tool towards this end, but the State is built out of economic and spiritual neccesity. Towards this end, Eugenics is used towards the weeding out of unfit individuals from the worker and Soldier class (you can't build a super-State on retarded individuals). As you can tell, Platonism is hardcore Nationalist Communism - Plato envisioned the Republic (note that "The Republic" is the english interpretation of a Latin misinterpretation of the original Greek version which literally meant "The State") as a Pan-Greek state uniting every Greek city in the then-civilized world (Athens was seen as degenerate - Sparta was seen as more in tune with the absolute ideal Form of the State).

The purpose of the State in Platonism is for the Philosopher Kings to build the Form of Man out of the Soldier class. The Form of Man is very similar to Nietzsche's ‹bermensch - strong, virile, quick of mind, energetic, honest, with a strong sense of integrity and independence. However, Plato wanted to dumb down the independence factor a bit because the State is the only thing permanent in the world and so the Form of the State should be supported and protected by a class of Form Men. Nietzsche wanted the end of the State and the introduction of what someone once called "Aristocratic Anarchism".

Nietzsche doesn't mention eugenics much in his writings, and his metaphysics are purely limited to this world - according to Nietzsche, there is no otherworld, no perfect forms, just this thing here. There is no salvation and there is no hellfire, there is just this world. Accordingly we should stop praying for the lightning not to explode across our heads and get to work being the best we can be in this world. "What does not kill me makes me stronger" Nietzsche explains in Twilight of the Idols. Happiness, Nietzsche claims, is the conquest of hurdles and pain - accordingly, pain is to be welcomed with open eyes and a big grin rather than pleas to heaven and cringing in the corner. Nietzsche hated the State because he saw it as an oppressive structure which crushes the Free Spirits and thinkers and tells us what to do. Nietzsche wanted the destruction of Nationalism and the ushering in of a United Europe.


A basic problem for Idealist Metaphysics is that it tends towards Universalism; in other words, it has an all-embracing propensity.

An idealist metaphysic for Spiritual Racialism has to cover everything. That's our basic problem, and its also the reason why I'm trying to find out a spiritual difference between Aryans and the Arabs.

Ederico
Sunday, March 30th, 2003, 02:12 PM
Thanks for your post Jack, very informative and easy to understand. In relation to your post I must say I consider myself an Idealist with Platonist tendencies and with a fascination towards Nietzsche's ideas of Nobility and the Overman and his Good European outlook transcending Chauvinistic intra-European resentment and conflict.

Plato's Idealism and Statistic synthesis of Capitalism and Socialism/Communism shares my support, morever his Eugenicism is something to support (though I never read about it). It must be seen in what manner he saw the Class Divisions within the Ideal Platonic Society, and whether these Classes are Organic and Flexible destroying any Hereditary Pattern but rather showing an Acquired Pattern of Classes.

Damn, I cannot find my copy of The Republic anywhere, I would love to read it now.

P.S. What does weltanshauung mean?

@ Moody or anyone that can respond

Why is Nietzsche's Philosophy rejecting all Idealism?

Jack
Tuesday, April 1st, 2003, 06:27 AM
Nietzsche hates idealism because from his perspective it leads to the mental escapism of Christianity (i.e. don't worry about this world, pray and you'll get somewhere better), and so Nietzsche discarded idealism altogether and said we must live in this world and not look for anything else, be the best we can be and use pain as a means to more strength. The exercise of strength and power, Nietzsche believed, was the definition of happiness. Contrast this to the Christian belief of the jelous God and you can understand why Nietzsche wanted to do away with idealism altogther.

Weltanshauung is a German word for an all-encompassing political-philosophical worldview.

Moody
Tuesday, April 1st, 2003, 06:03 PM
I agree with Jack's definitions in the main.

Platonic Metaphysics [e.g., Idealism, Forms] are to be opposed to objectivist First Philosophy and Nietzscheanism for the reasons he gave.

I will add that Nietzsche thought that the Aryan outlook [which he sees as primarily, but not only, objectivist] had been turned up-side down by Idealism.

I interpret this to refer to the change in Aryan caste order, where the once dominant Warrior caste [and therefore objectivist caste as all warriors need to be] was usurped by the priestly caste.
In their lust for power, the priests made the spiritual realm [a realm we do not deny] into the 'real' world, and the objective world - the here and now of the body and the earth - was made into an illusion.

So I do not see in Nietzsche a complete rejection of the spiritual, but rather a return to the spiritual world being subject to the warrior out-look. Spirituality then becomes a consolation for the warrior, and the domain of the creative artist.

There is not an either/or, but a 'transvaluation of values'.
At the top is the Body, the Earth and the physical struggle.
Below that is the realm of ideas and art which essentially serve the physical struggle and glorify the warrior.

Dead warriors DO exist in the spirit realm; souls DO reincarnate etc., but these metaphysical realms are nothing without the flesh and blood of the living warrior.

Given all that, I must disagree with Jack on one important point;
I personally find that Nietzsche's Ubermensch [Superman] has more in common with Aristotle's 'Great Souled Man' than it does with anything in Plato.
Note that Jack puts Aristotle in the opposing Objectivist camp, rather than in the Platonist Idealist camp.

I say this because Nietzsche [unlike Plato] was careful to reject any Idealist interpretation of Great Men.
Nietzsche gave examples from history of those who he thought closest to his Superman; the examples given were always conquerors and warriors, such as Julius Caesar, Napoleon and Cesare Borgia.
There was nothing 'ideal' about those men!

He talked of 'types', rather than ideals, and his 'type' of the Aryan conqueror was the 'Blond Beast'.

Again, we see that the Warrior caste is paramount.
In ethical terms, this is Master Morality.

Importantly, Master Morality is anti-universal; it only works within the caste.

Within the caste [i.e., race] the highest standards of honour and chivalry are observed; outside of it, the Blond Beast prevails.

To conclude my diatribe here, I will say that our Aryan metaphysics must be STRATIFIED.
It must be dominated by the objectivist warrior outlook which is underpinned by First Philosophy.
However this MUST inter-relate with a Spiritualist outlook which is there to serve the warrior outlook.

The best example of this is one word - VALHALLA.

The priest, the prophet, just like the artist, are servants of the Warrior.

Ederico
Tuesday, April 1st, 2003, 06:45 PM
The Aryan Race requires a return to a Master Morality, the rediscovery of its Faustian Spirit and the revival of a Conquering attitude. Essentially, current Western and European Civilisation is anti-thetical to all of this and in radical opposition to the Nobility of a Master. It is basically at the mediocre level of a Hedonistic Individualist Spiritually, that revels in anything that is Morally Degenerate and has Egalitarianism and Universalism as his Mistresses.

To destroy this current state of affairs we require a Racialist Master Morality. Masters are Individuals above norm that gather around them Collectives to lead. Masters can embrace Blood & Soil and elevate the Race from the pits of Racial Degeneracy, Masters are the real Leaders!


To conclude my diatribe here, I will say that our Aryan metaphysics must be STRATIFIED.
It must be dominated by the objectivist warrior outlook which is underpinned by First Philosophy.
However this MUST inter-relate with a Spiritualist outlook which is there to serve the warrior outlook.

The Warrior Outlook, or rather the Master Morality which is essentially of this world must be integrated in Synthesis with the Idealistic and Metaphysical in order to achieve a higher level. Essentially it is Master Morality that must dominate as that is the guide to this world. Strength, Pride, Honour, Discipline, Blood and Fatherland these are noble values that must permeate our Racialist Ethos. We require a Racialist Master Morality!


The best example of this is one word - VALHALLA.
I would like to provide here what an Asatruar told me are the Nine Important Virtues of Asatru which we should adoperate:

STRENGTH IS BETTER THAN WEAKNESS - Let others wallow in their vulnerability! We are not ashamed to be strong. The cult of the anti-hero will find no support in us, and the Gods we follow are not for the weak.
COURAGE IS BETTER THAN COWARDICE - By facing life's struggles with courage, we constantly extend our capabilities. Without courage, nothing else can be done!
JOY IS BETTER THAN GUILT - Let us take pleasure in our humanity, rather than being ashamed of who we are. Misplaced guilt because of our sexuality, or our strength, or our greatness, has enslaved us long enough!
HONOR IS BETTER THAN DISHONOR - We must be true to what we are and what we believe, and we must always act with nobility rather than baseness. Our personal standards must be banners held high in our hearts!
FREEDOM IS BETTER THAN SLAVERY - We have no master! Those who would enslave us, whatever their excuse, are our enemies. The totalitarian ant nest is repugnant to those who demand the free, bracing wind of the Northlands!
KINSHIP IS BETTER THAN ALIENATION - The isolation and loneliness of modern life is foreign to us, nor it is a necessary evil. We call our Folk to return to kith and kin, to family, clan and tribe.
REALISM IS BETTER THAN DOGMATISM - Blind faith has no place in Asatru. Our ancestors may have been sublimely mystical, but they were at the same time severely practical. We must respond to this world, and act in it rather than wait calmly for the next.
VIGOR IS BETTER THAN LIFELESSNESS - Do, and dare! Take risks and taste the richness of life. We refuse to be mere spectators. Passivity is for sheep, and we prefer to be wolves!
ANCESTRY IS BETTER THAN UNIVERSALISM - Asatru springs from the soul of the Northern peoples, and it is suited by its very nature to our needs. It is intertwined with our existence as a people. We respect all, but it is right and just that we honor our own ancestors first.

Now we might not agree with everything, but this is Master Morality.

Jack
Wednesday, April 2nd, 2003, 06:21 AM
What is the relationship between the racial Spirits and the universe? I think we can use this as a base for something.

Moody
Thursday, April 3rd, 2003, 03:16 PM
This means that the Christian/Enlightenment Morality is rejected, but not the pagan Master Morality, which divides humans between Noble and Base, or Good and Bad.

1)
To our Jew/Christian/Enlightenment friends we are 'evil', but then that is due to their reversed view of the world, as we would expect from our antipodes.

We have arrived here at an Ethics - yes, a code of behaviour which is appropriate to caste. I underpin this Ethics with the First Philosophy of Will to Power.
But we are not looking for an Ethics here as such.

This Ethics is not a Metaphysics in the sense we need for this forum of tradition and lore, i.e., in the Idealist sense.
It cannot answer the question;
"What makes the belief in a Valhalla possible"?

2)
Here I come to our Manichean Metaphysics; Darkness versus Light.

The bridge between this Metaphysics and the First Philosophy of Will to Power is the Conspiracy View of History.
Once we leave the reach of known history [or even before], Aryan versus Jew becomes Light versus Dark.

The Zarathustran Duality which sees the Universe as an endless struggle of polarities - Fire and Ice.

This struggle manifests itself in culture as Aryan versus Jew, and in Race, as White versus Black.

Jack
Friday, April 4th, 2003, 08:43 AM
That can't work, sorry. Fact is I live in a country in which blacks are a very small issue, but is being colonised in massive numbers by Asians. I reject dualism entirely. Sorry, can't work - how do you fit muslims, turks and east asians in that? mix bloods?

Moody
Friday, April 4th, 2003, 04:40 PM
I am putting forward that which works for myself, if it doesn't work for others - fine; let them propose their alternatives.

1)

As I said, this Weltanschauung of mine works on several levels.

First Philosophy says that; 'life is Will to Power' at its most foundational level.

There is thus a Struggle.

A Struggle presupposes a conflict of at least two competing elements.

In my Metaphysics of Higher Forms, this struggle involves the forces of Light against Darkness.

In our limited historical/cultural terms [and the history we know of is but a tiny and infinitesimal chink of the wider Universe in the great swathe of Time], this struggle manifests itself as Aryan versus Jew.

2)

Your own objections apply to an even smaller section of that historical/cultural area.

Australia, as we all know, was colonised VERY RECENTLY by the British. Before then it was inhabited for THOUSANDS of years prior, by the Aborigines etc.,

Islam is a non-Aryan religion, although it can co-exist [but separately] with Aryan culture as it always has done.

Indeed, the dualistic outlook announces the NECESSITY of its opposites, its antipodes, its antitheses [ although it abhors the tendency of promiscuous mix-breeds to sully Whiteness].

It does not seek to eradicate the Darkness, as one could not live in perpetual Light.

Rather, its goal is to create the Superhuman Light, against the ever gathering storm clouds of Darkness.

It is a Lightning from the Dark Cloud.

Jack
Sunday, April 13th, 2003, 07:38 AM
Well, here's my alternative....

In the beginning there was the Void of nothingness. A consciousness stirred in the Void, and that consciousness was God (rest assured, this is certainly not Jewish). After long contemplation, God spent his energy to create the universe, and in the effort of creation he lost his essential unity and became mad, dividing up into three Spirits. His consciousness dissipated into the universe he created, and the history of all hitherto humanity is the development and conflict of those Spirits, incarnated through the Races, towards their final End, the domination of one Spirit over the Universe and the return of God.

The Dark Spirit exist within the Dark Races, and can be defined by its natural tendency towards lowly existance, hand to mouth struggle, and the ecstatic, and is little more than animal with consciousness. Its very existance implies the achievement of its Final End, as that is merely the motivation of the animal - survive, expand and destroy all Higher Spirits.

The Asiatic Spirit animates the Asian races, or rather doesn't animate them: without foreign influence, the Asiatic Spirit reveals itself as the will to nothingness - to asceticism, to absolute self control, to peace, to conservatism, in Buddhism, Confucionism and Taoism - in short, to escape from this world, to an Otherworld. This world is only of relevance so long as the Void is of relevance - this proves itself in the Magian world as the constant struggle towards a higher-than-earth power - towards Jehova, towards Allah. The Asiatic will is a will to an abstraction, and this will to power through abstraction is most dominant in the Jewish Race (note: Race is a biological-spiritual community, and not just biological), and is revealed through the post-Babylon attitude of the Jewish Race as the persecuted chosen slaves of God, rather than the previous attitude as the Chosen Lords of the Earth. The attitude change is subtle but important, and is most revealed in the language of many Christians - "God fearing". The Jewish Race, after being detatched from its religious grounding, has found its refuge in its consistant drive towards explaining and defining the world through abstractions - "Dialectical Materialism", "Freudian psychoanalysis", "Liberal Democracy", "International Capitalism".

The Aryan Spirit, on the other hand, is the Asiatic Spirit turned upside down - it puts the abstraction into form rather than attempt to tear all form from everything and be left with a skeletal abstraction. The Aryan Spirit is simply the will to mastery - Truth, Honour, Self Discipline, Power, Loyalty, Self-Elevation, Infinite Victory, Integrity, Personal Excellence, Creation. Although the Aryan Spirit has been distorted by the Asiatic Spirit through Christianity, since the fall of Christianity, it is the continued Asiatic influence, through the Jewish Spirit, over the Aryan Race that has prevented a natural revaluation of all values. The annihilation of the Asiatic Spirit influence over the Aryan Race is nessecary for the realisation of the Final End of the Aryan Spirit - the perfect unification and total mobilization of the Aryan Race, which can be summarised in the words God and Empire.

The perfect unification of the Aryan Spirit and Race requires the recognition of the natural five Castes - the Statesmen, the Aristocracy, the Industrialists, the Priests and the Workers.

The Statesmen are the political elite, those whose tendency, or spirit, is to lead and nothing else. They embody the military virtues of the Aristocracy, the will to power of the Industrialists and the natural generosity of the Priests with a natural drive to lead. These will form the leadership of the Empire. Backing them will be the Aristocracy. The Officer class, built out of the revolutionary leaders, would govern their native regions, supported by a council of elected representatives of the people.

Embodying the economic incarnation of the will to power, the Industrialist Caste will be a free-form elite which will provide the economic foundations of the Empire, employing the Worker Caste and driven by the will to survive, enhance and expand across infinite space, it will be the strength of the Empire.

The Worker Caste will be made of the mass of the Aryan population, those who do not care greatly for Heroism, Leadership, Immovable Will to Power or overflowing generosity - in other words, the Common Man, for whom the words "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ring perfectly true. This Caste is ill suited for leadership on a grand scale and by all sense of Justice it will stay that way.

Protecting the Empire with its moral excellence in the eyes of the Common Man, the Priest Caste is made of those whose spirit is naturally orientated towards generosity and iron self discipline in the face of sensuality and the common instincts.

The Aryan Spirit and Race, united in the Empire, is the fist, mind, consciousness and incarnation of God, the will to infinite power over the universe. With the other Spirits there can be no compromise - were they to be united under the Aryan Empire, the Spirits would mix and chaos would reign free, as it has before in all hitherto existing Empires, or if the Empire stops short, then it would be overrun and the Aryan Spirit and Race, as it is in the situation it is faced now, it faces annihilation - the situation must be reversed, and towards this end the preparation of a culture of total mobilization must be created. Even in the absence of other Spirits, we still have a universe to conquer, and it is in our innate Spirit to seek infinite space amongst the stars. Survival is only the beginning.

=============================

Question: If Apollo is logic, and Dionysius is energy, and you cross both with extreme strength, don't you end up with the Faustian spirit?

Moody
Sunday, April 13th, 2003, 05:45 PM
I have to question your first sentence;

"In the Beginning etc., etc.,".

Which is virtually the outlook given in Genesis.

I find this anti-Metaphysical and religious.

I would rather say that the Cosmos/CHAOS IS Eternal - there is no 'beginning'.

Jack
Sunday, April 13th, 2003, 06:25 PM
I have to question your first sentence;

Its intended to start that way. My idea of God being destroyed and restructured is intended to build a ragnarok effect against the current order.


I find this anti-Metaphysical and religious. I would rather say that the Cosmos/CHAOS IS Eternal - there is no 'beginning'.

Entirely possible, except I don't think human consciousness copes with eternity that well, he's got to have some point of reference. My point is there but it doesn't have any time connection with the current order. Eternal reccurance, while a very cool theory, is something I don't think is suitable for a WN philosophy, or any kind of Western Aryan philosophy. Define "anti-Metaphysical".

Moody
Monday, April 14th, 2003, 04:48 PM
I feel that the positing of a 'beginning' negates a fulsome conception of a 'beyond' [taking metaphysical in the Platonic mode].
It is rather analogous to merely human experience, reasoning that everything must have a beginning because we creatures are finite things, born at a specific moment in Time.

It is an anthropomorphic view and therefore religious.
It is easy to understand that the world is born like a baby - too easy, and human all too human.

The Semitic religions all talk in these terms of 'in the beginning' etc.,

Whereas Aryan spirituality tends toward the view of Eternity.
Its very difficulty recommends it, because 'in the beginning' can only be thought in a superficial way.
Once you start to take the chain of cause and effect backwards you encounter problems - where is the 'beginning'?

I think it is a cycle and the 'end' meets the 'beginning' everywhere in a ceaseless spiral of Becoming.

Nietzsche took the idea of Eternity from Heraclitus, and I feel that it is the true Aryan outlook.
I regard all 'beginnings' as having a Semitic cast.

Our Spirits are Eternal, without beginning or End.

[p.s. Ragnarok is not the End, but a New Beginning, although I accept that the Eddas have some Christian influence in them].

Jack
Tuesday, April 15th, 2003, 02:16 AM
I feel that the positing of a 'beginning' negates a fulsome conception of a 'beyond' [taking metaphysical in the Platonic mode].

Understandable - but within cyclical history (i.e. big bang big crunch big bang again...), you've still got to have a beginning of this cycle. Besides that you've got possibilities of multiple universes and/or dimensions. Its interesting all up.


It is rather analogous to merely human experience, reasoning that everything must have a beginning because we creatures are finite things, born at a specific moment in Time.

True. But you abolish the idea of time, in favour of eternal recurrance, cyclical history or something else and human achievements and deeds seem pointless.


The Semitic religions all talk in these terms of 'in the beginning' etc.,

Whereas Aryan spirituality tends toward the view of Eternity.
Its very difficulty recommends it, because 'in the beginning' can only be thought in a superficial way.
Once you start to take the chain of cause and effect backwards you encounter problems - where is the 'beginning'?

I have to agree. Eternity is a difficult concept, and Plato's first cause seems a cop out to me.


I think it is a cycle and the 'end' meets the 'beginning' everywhere in a ceaseless spiral of Becoming.

Nietzsche thought the same thing. An idea of cyclical chaos theory is just... I don't know :gift


Nietzsche took the idea of Eternity from Heraclitus, and I feel that it is the true Aryan outlook.
I regard all 'beginnings' as having a Semitic cast.

Looking back on what I wrote, I think its more Hegelian than Semetic, but I suppose once the Empire collapses it'll split up reform, and it'll all move on again. The same Spirit will keep going.


Our Spirits are Eternal, without beginning or End.

I don't think individuals have "spirits". We just have consciousness, the ability to reason, and the common racial Spirit (singular) which drives us.


[p.s. Ragnarok is not the End, but a New Beginning, although I accept that the Eddas have some Christian influence in them].

I always thought Ragnarok was the beginning and the end at the same time. I haven't read the Eddas - what Christian influence do you see in them?

Moody
Tuesday, April 15th, 2003, 05:12 PM
1. The Discernment.

The Eddas are essential to our outlook within the ambit of tradition and lore.
Unfortunately they were transmitted during the Middle Ages via channelers who were Christian.
The Prose Edda by Snorri is a great work of synthesis [of pagan/christian lore]. However, the pagan and christian elements are combinded rather than blended, and one can siphon them off one from the other.
The Poetic Edda ia an anonymous collection of material on which the Prose Edda largely draws; Christian influence is discernable in some parts, particularly in the eschatological interpretation of Ragnarok. Also in the treatment of Baldur as a Christ-like figure.

If one thinks of Virgil's famous Pastorals where a saviour figure is mentioned pre-Christianity, we see how that was seized upon by Christians in the later Empire to say that Christianity was pre-empted by the pagans!

So the pagan spirtuality was incorporated and tainted by the Christians, and in the case of the Eddas, we do not have extant pre-Christian examples to draw from.

The reason I mention Virgil there, is to suggest that Baldur's Christliness may have been alll his own and naturally high-lighted by the Christian scribes who wrote the myths down.

So part of our work is to take traditions and lore like the Eddas, the Arthurian Cycles etc., and extract the Aryan essence from them, and discard the Semitic chaff.

An example would be the supposed 'ending' of Ragnarok, which shows some Christian influence, and the tale that in Ragnarok Odinn will whisper a secret word in Baldur's ear.
Pagans take that word to be 'rebirth', hence the cyclical nature of the real myths which have much in common with the Hindu writings.
Also, 'rune' means 'whisper' and 'mystery, or secret'; therefore the endless nature of Runic transformation is hinted at.

Such aspects as the latter would have not been apparent to the Christian scribes, and it is in those parts of the Eddas which were just copied down without comprehension where we see the Aryan quality strongest.

A good book for studying the Eddas in an Aryan context is 'The Masks of Odin'.

2. The Massy Spirit.

I have a slight problem with the idea of us having only a 'singular' spirit. Spirit, like its modern materialist version 'consciousness', is a complex thing and is only caught sight of in glimpses.
In mystic awe, in musical experience, in Poetry we can feel the immanence of the Spirits who are manifold and given the names of the Gods and Goddesses of our Aryan pantheons.
To me, Aryan consciousness or Spirituality is a vast thing which only a few have even grasped a fraction of.

3. Kuklos.

The basic difference is between the linear progressus and the circular return.
The former is seen in Semitic accounts where there is a clear beginning and a progression towards an end-time, whether it be a Final Judgement or an Apocalypse.
In Hegel everything is working towards the apotheosis of the Spirit.

I discern in Aryan spirituality something very different - the Eternal Return of complex cycles.
This feature is found in anything from Vedic scripture to Spenglerian philosophy.

The beauty of Nietzsche's version of 'The Eternal Recurrence of the Same' is the thought that the great 'gods' of Aryanism [or Superhumans] are reincarnating in epochs through the Ages.
The Great Men will come again and again into infinity.
See Savitri Devi's philosophy for this idea.

4. Timelessness.

The idea of Time as we know it is something of a construct. Advances in science imply that 'Time' is a limitation of our consciousnesses, and that existence takes place outside of Time.
Indeed, Metaphysics itself is beyond moribund Time.
Savitri Devi called the Aryan hero the 'Man Against Time'.

5. Beginning of the End.

The point is that there is no beginning as such; there is merely a transformation from one state to another state within another cycle. Yes, cycles are multiple and overlap in ways beyond our human comprehension.

Jack
Wednesday, April 16th, 2003, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by Moody Lawless
1. The Discernment.

The Eddas are essential to our outlook within the ambit of tradition and lore.
Unfortunately they were transmitted during the Middle Ages via channelers who were Christian.
The Prose Edda by Snorri is a great work of synthesis [of pagan/christian lore]. However, the pagan and christian elements are combinded rather than blended, and one can siphon them off one from the other.
The Poetic Edda ia an anonymous collection of material on which the Prose Edda largely draws; Christian influence is discernable in some parts, particularly in the eschatological interpretation of Ragnarok. Also in the treatment of Baldur as a Christ-like figure.

If one thinks of Virgil's famous Pastorals where a saviour figure is mentioned pre-Christianity, we see how that was seized upon by Christians in the later Empire to say that Christianity was pre-empted by the pagans!

So the pagan spirtuality was incorporated and tainted by the Christians, and in the case of the Eddas, we do not have extant pre-Christian examples to draw from.

The reason I mention Virgil there, is to suggest that Baldur's Christliness may have been alll his own and naturally high-lighted by the Christian scribes who wrote the myths down.

So part of our work is to take traditions and lore like the Eddas, the Arthurian Cycles etc., and extract the Aryan essence from them, and discrad the Semitic chaff.

An example would be the supposed 'ending' of Ragnarok, which shows some Christian influence, and the tale that in Ragnarok Odinn will whisper a secret word in Baldur's ear.
Pagans take that word to be 'rebirth', hence the cyclical nature of the real myths which have much in common with the Hindu writings.
Also, 'rune' means 'whisper' and 'mystery, or secret'; therefore the endless nature of Runic transformation is hinted at.

Such aspects as latter would have not been apparent to the Christian scribes, and it is in those parts of the Eddas which were just copied down without comprehension where we see the Aryan quality strongest.

A good book for studying the Eddas in an Aryan context is 'The Masks of Odin'.

Thanks, I'll try buy the Eddas and find that book.


2. The Massy Spirit.

I have a slight problem with the idea of us having only a 'singular' spirit. Spirit, like its modern materialist version 'consciousness', is a complex thing and is only caught sight of in glimpses.
In mystic awe, in musical experience, in Poetry we can feel the immanence of the Spirits who are manifold and given the names of the Gods and Goddesses of our Aryan pantheons.
To me, Aryan consciousness or Spirituality is a vast thing which only a few have even grasped a fraction of.

That's sort of what I was referring to when I said "Spirit".


3. Kuklos.

The basic difference is between the linear progressus and the circular return.
The former is seen in Semitic accounts where there is a clear beginning and a progression towards an end-time, whether it be a Final Judgement or an Apocalypse.
In Hegel everything is working towards the apotheosis of the Spirit.

I discern in Aryan spirituality something very different - the Eternal Return of complex cycles.
This feature is found in anything from Vedic scripture to Spenglerian philosophy.

Cycles (life, death, rebirth of the individual) within cycles (rise and fall of races) within cycles (big bang big crunch)? I get what you're saying but I found no real referance to cyclical history in the Hindu Upanishads.


The beauty of Nietzsche's version of 'The Eternal Recurrence of the Same' is the thought that the great 'gods' of Aryanism [or Superhumans] are reincarnating in epochs throuh the Ages.
The Great Men will come again and again into infinity.
See Savitri Devi's philosophy for this idea.

And what about the common man?


4. Timelessness.

The idea of Time as we know it is something of a construct. Advances in science imply that 'Time' is a limitation of our consciousnesses, and that existence takes place outside of Time.
Indeed, Metaphysics itself is beyond moribund Time.
Savitri Devi called the Aryan hero the 'Man Against Time'.

I think I'm making sense of what you're saying. Time is a construct of man within Existance created from his subjective consciousness. As everything is the rise and fall of organic things within the rise and fall of the universe, man can't percieve these cycles and so looks at them from a linear perspective. I think...


5. Beginning of the End.

The point is that there is no beginning as such; there is merely a transformation from one state to another state within another cycle. Yes, cycles are multiple and overlap in ways beyond our human comprehension.

Ok. Now how do we tie this in with blood and spiritual racialism?

Moody
Thursday, November 13th, 2003, 07:33 PM
"Now how do we tie this in with blood and spiritual racialism?"

We view Blood as 'a very special fluid'.

See my 'Of Necessity/Blood and Soil/Aryanosophy' thread;
http://forums.skadi.net/necessity_blood_and_soil_aryanosophy-t1595.html

Bakunin
Thursday, December 7th, 2006, 08:29 AM
2. Metaphysics.

Now if we concentrate on the West, then we have to view Metaphysics within the ambit of the West [and leave aside the Metaphysics developed in Aryan India as racially incompatible].

It is clear to me that Metaphysics in the West came to an end with Nietzsche; the phase of some 2 millennia from Platonism to Nietzscheanism is exhausted.
God is Dead, and so is Metaphysics.


I have to disagree here. Eastern and western metaphysics aren't incompatible, Martin Heidegger for example closed the gap between both. And metaphysics aren't dead, because reality isn't dead yet. The powers that be trashed metaphysics because it's was simply impossible to alter logic by means of money. Logic is truly independent and what they can't control has to go. In order to understand what happened to metaphysics, ons has to go back to the time when things changed. Metaphysics had to go because the bourgeoisie - the new established rulling class - couldn't control it.

"And now that the development of capitalism and parliamentarism has borne its fruits, and the bourgeoisie has exhausted every generous sentiment and progressive elan by the practice of political and economic competition, it is reduced to having to defend its privileges with force and deceit, while its philosophers cannot defend it against the socialist attacks except by bringing up, inopportunely, the law of vital competition."

-- Errico Malatesta, Mutual Aid, ~1920

Moody
Thursday, December 7th, 2006, 01:47 PM
I have to disagree here. Eastern and western metaphysics aren't incompatible

You may be right on the intellectual/spiritual level; I was responding to the suggestion of a practical Pan-East-West metaphyics based on the view of Aryanism Theosophy came close to this], that could be embraced by the racialist movement today.

I opined that the racial differences between those of the East and West would be too wide to make this practicable.


Martin Heidegger for example closed the gap between both. And metaphysics aren't dead, because reality isn't dead yet.

He did, but he found himself more and more unable to take action as he closed that gap within himself.
He found himself waiting upon Being.

I say that the outlook demanded must include action if it is to interest the Aryans of the West.

Incidentally, Heidegger agreed with Nietzsche that the latter brought Western metaphysics to an end. The difference being that Heidegger saw Nietzsche as being part of that movement, whereas Nietzsche saw himself as outside of it and the start of the new departure - the philosophy of the future.

I made the important distinction in the earlier posts of this thread between the idealistic and Platonic metaphysics [this is the movement which had 'died'], and the 'realist' [for want of a better word] metaphysics of 'first philosophy' [or else ontology] which latter certainly won't die because, as you suggest, it is concerned with "reality".

So the 'death of metaphysics' refers only to that idealist tradition out of Platonism which informed Christian theology too [Nietzsche calls Christianity 'Platonism for the people'].


The powers-that-be trashed metaphysics because it's was simply impossible to alter logic by means of money. Logic is truly independent and what they can't control has to go. In order to understand what happened to metaphysics, one has to go back to the time when things changed. Metaphysics had to go because the bourgeoisie - the new established rulling class - couldn't control it.

That's an interesting thesis - I would like to hear it in more detail - with names of philosophical, political movements and events etc.,

The Nietzschean view is that [idealist] metaphysics came to the end of its natural life and collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, contradictions which it could no longer paper-over and hide.

Bakunin
Thursday, December 7th, 2006, 05:27 PM
You may be right on the intellectual/spiritual level; I was responding to the suggestion of a practical Pan-East-West metaphyics based on the view of Aryanism Theosophy came close to this], that could be embraced by the racialist movement today.

He did, but he found himself more and more unable to take action as he closed that gap within himself.
He found himself waiting upon Being.

I say that the outlook demanded must include action if it is to interest the Aryans of the West.

I think we first have to distinguish between metaphysics and philosophy on one side, and ideology and propaganda on the other. Ideology is a kind of fake philosohy which only exist to bring forward some usually subversive agenda. Like the ideology Leo Strauss - the father of the neo-cons - created. Philosohy and metaphysics are concerned with truth and reality, while ideology usually neglets both in favor of some agenda. Metaphysic exists for the sake of knowledge and wisdom, not actions.

And knowledge and wisdom should be of interest to all of humanity - knowledge is power.

"The philosopher is in love with truth, that is, not with the changing world of sensation, which is the object of opinion, but with the unchanging reality which is the object of knowledge."

-- Plato



I made the important distinction in the earlier posts of this thread between the idealistic and Platonic metaphysics [this is the movement which had 'died'], and the 'realist' [for want of a better word] metaphysics of 'first philosophy' [or else ontology] which latter certainly won't die because, as you suggest, it is concerned with "reality".

So the 'death of metaphysics' refers only to that idealist tradition out of Platonism which informed Christian theology too [Nietzsche calls Christianity 'Platonism for the people'].


You talk about the old philosophical conflict between Plato the "idealist", and Aristotle the "realist" right? These old conflict exists still today. None of these movements really died. The "powers that be" supressed the idealist movement because it was in direct conflict with there agenda and still is. Same happened to the anarchists btw.

These so called "realists" are nothing more than intellectual prostitutes, slaves of the establishment, enemy's of the people! The time of the "end" of the idealists marks the victory of hippocrasy over truth in history. We still have to live with the consequences today, in politics, the media, hippocrasy is everywhere! Im truly sick of it.

Im not sure what to think about Nietzsche, but christianity is pure hippocrasy, and probably always was.



That's an interesting thesis - I would like to hear it in more detail - with names of philosophical, political movements and events etc.,

I can try to give a small overview about what happened and some dates and names (it's a huge subject). It all started around the time of the french revolution, when the "powers that be" feared to totally loose control.


"The higher education would give less ground for the complaint that it throws into society crowds of ambitious persons without any means of satisfying their desires, and interested in the overthrow of the State; people without employment and unable to get any, good for nothing and believing themselves fit for anything, especially for the direction of public affairs. Scientific studies do not so inflate the mind. They enlighten and regulate it at once; they fit men for practical life. . . ."

-- M. Chevalier, around the time of the french revolution


In order to keep there power, some very important changes were made in key areas of society (they exist still today for the very reason of keeping the population under control):


- Economy: Industrialisation (the end of the independent worker)
- Education: compulsory schooling, fragmented education, indoctrination
- Scince: fragmentation (the "dead" of metaphysics (ontology) and reason in scince)
- Politics: fragmentation, birth of parliamentarism (neo-plutocracy)


These changes than slowly lead to the end of the Age of Enlightenment. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - the first person to call him self an anarchist and one of the last metaphysicians - wrote a lot about these changes in society. Anarchists are fighting against these changes ever since.

"Since the establishment of large factories, a multitude of little industries have disappeared from the domestic hearth: does any one believe that the girls who work for ten and fifteen cents have as much intelligence as their ancestors?"

-- Proudhon, „The Philosophy of Misery“, 1846


"The people, unfortunately, are still very ignorant, and are kept in ignorance by the systematic efforts of all the governments, who consider this ignorance, not without good reason, as one of the essential conditions of their own power."

-- Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876)


"The scientist of today is distressed by the fact that the results of his scientific work have created a threat to mankind since they have fallen into the hands of morally blind exponents of political power. He is conscious of the fact that technological methods, made possible by his work, have led to a concentration of economic and also of political power in the hands of small minorities which have come to dominate completely the lives of the masses of people, who appear more and more amorphous. But even worse: the concentration of economic and political power has not only made the man of science dependent economically, it also threatens his independence from within; the shrewd methods of intellectual and psychic influences which it brings to bear will prevent the development of independent personalities."

-- Albert Einstein, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1952

Taras Bulba
Thursday, December 7th, 2006, 05:33 PM
but christianity is pure hippocrasy, and probably always was.


Keep telling yourself that. :blueroll:

Moody
Monday, December 11th, 2006, 01:48 PM
I think we first have to distinguish between metaphysics and philosophy on one side, and ideology and propaganda on the other. Ideology is a kind of fake philosohy which only exist to bring forward some usually subversive agenda. Like the ideology Leo Strauss - the father of the neo-cons - created. Philosohy and metaphysics are concerned with truth and reality, while ideology usually neglets both in favor of some agenda. Metaphysic exists for the sake of knowledge and wisdom, not actions.

I agree with the distinctions you make, but I think there is one flaw in your reasoning; I believe that all actions are grounded in a philosophy or a metaphyics.
That is why we find the latter to be fundamental.

So whether we know it or no, whether we are conscious of the fact or not, our actions, our deeds [and our non-actions, indeed] are informed by the philosophy to which we subscribe - knowingly or otherwise.
This is why it is important to set our out our philosophical/metaphysical thoughts as clearly as we can.


And knowledge and wisdom should be of interest to all of humanity - knowledge is power.

But various sections of 'humanity' disagree on what knowledge and wisdom are - and not all would agree with Bacon on the relationship between knowledge and power.
Therefore there are definite differences in outlook, between say Aryan wisdom on the one hand, and Semitic wisdom on the other. Indeed, the two would not even acknowledge that the other is truly wise, and vice versa, on certain questions.


You talk about the old philosophical conflict between Plato the "idealist", and Aristotle the "realist" right? These old conflict exists still today. None of these movements really died.

How would you characterise the differing view of Metaphysics held by Plato and Aristotle, comparing one to the other?


These so called "realists" are nothing more than intellectual prostitutes, slaves of the establishment, enemy's of the people! The time of the "end" of the idealists marks the victory of hippocrasy over truth in history.
Im not sure what to think about Nietzsche, but christianity is pure hipocrisy, and probably always was.

But Nietzsche drew a clear link between Platonic Idealism and Christian Metaphysics. You must know the famous section in The Twilight of the Idols where Nietzsche shows how the 'real world became a lie' from the Platonistic reversal of Being and Becoming?

He set out the following stages;

In Plato the 'real world' apparent world that we all inhabit] is thought attainable only to the wise and virtuous;

In Christianity its attainment is delayed;

In Kant, it becomes merely a consolation;

In positivism, it becomes pointless;

Finally its existence is denied [the kind or realism you are speaking of];

If there is no real world there is no apparent world either [Nietzsche's conclusion].


It all started around the time of the french revolution, when the "powers that be" feared to totally loose control.

But wasn't 'realism' inherent in the creed of the Revolutionaries?
And wasn't the monarch they overthrew part of a Metaphysical Order [the Divine Right of Kings]?
Didn't the Revolution seek to install a republic based on reason [positivism] and realism?


- Economy: Industrialisation (the end of the independent worker)
- Education: compulsory schooling, fragmented education, indoctrination
- Science: fragmentation (the "dead" of metaphysics (ontology) and reason in science)
- Politics: fragmentation, birth of parliamentarism (neo-plutocracy)

I would associate all these things more with the Revolutionaries, with the Enlightenment, and the [i]bourgeoisie - rather than with the ancien regime.



These changes than slowly lead to the end of the Age of Enlightenment. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon - the first person to call him self an anarchist and one of the last metaphysicians - wrote a lot about these changes in society. Anarchists are fighting against these changes ever since.

I see Anarchism as being just the more extreme edge of the Revolutionary forces; what are the Metaphysics of Anarchism?