Perhaps similarly, it’s occurred to me that there may be an affinity between the anarch and the desireless action of the Bagavad Gita. The anarch may be inspired to create a work of art or other manifestation of his spirit in the world, but his consciousness of eternity keeps all in perspective. Venator takes issue with Nietzsche’s claim that even art is the Will to Power. The anarch is not even precluded from tyrannicide, but if he takes such an action it’s for his own purposes, which however aren’t confined to the narrowness of the ego narrowly conceived. It seems that what makes an anarch an anarch is simply that he recognizes no ruler. Therefore he is not constrained as the anarchist is to eliminate something that doesn’t exist.

Interestingly, I just wrote a comment in your blog about capital punishment, saying that the “fundamental law” mentioned by Juenger was something like karma, or action/reaction. I would now modify that and say that the fundamental law is the law of conduct dictated to oneself by one’s own conscience. This is not in contradiction to karma or action/reaction, if we also consider the psychological consequences of one’s actions.

In the context of this blog, an anarch whose conscience said that writing a risky but important book was necessary would commit a “sin” against himself by not doing it.

This is in fact egoism, but of a higher form, that understands the subtler psychological, and not merely external, effects of one’s actions. Of course, it presupposes the presence of a truly independent conscience in the subject, which is by now means a given. Most people have merely socialized conscience; and those anarchists who fight externally against the enemy of society without realizing the far more dangerous “enemy within” are not exceptions. This is the “hearing the alarm bell but charging off in the wrong direction” described by Juenger above.