Aryan Anarchism – An expression of the Aryan thirst for freedom


I. What is Aryan Anarchism?

As Aryan Anarchism I consider those forms of anarchism not compromised by harmful Jewish ideologies like communism, fascism, capitalism or their like. Aryan anarchism has it’s focus on individualism and localism, not collectivism, or centralism, like in communist systems or forms of anarchism infected by communist ideology.

Aryan Anarchism is an expression of the Aryan thirst for freedom.

“Communists, in general, build up a strange illusion: fanatics on the subject of power, they expect to secure through a central force, and in the special case in question, through collective wealth, by a sort of reversion, the welfare of the laborer who has created this wealth: as if the individual came into existence after society, instead of society after the individual.”

— Proudhon (1809-1865), “The Philosophy of Misery”

Nazism, communism, capitalism; let alone the external apparence and they are basically all the same, like different sides of the same triangle. They are all based on the old Egyptian class society, the pyramid-system; a small ruling class at the top, think of the “inter party” in Orwell’s 1984; a class benith it to serve the ruling class, the “outer party”; and a majority of slaves, proletarians, or whatver you wanna call them at the bottom of the pyramid.

II. Why it is called “Aryan Anarchism”?

I choose the name “Aryan Anarchism” for a couple of reasons.

1) Anarchism and anti-authoritarian systems in general are based on the old Aryan way of life; small local communities, freedom, Independence, direct democracy. The pyramid-system of organisation, with it’s class society and a small ruling class, in it’s form almost unchanged since ancient Egypt, was forced upon us from the outside.

2) To make a clear distinction to forms of anarchism infected by harmful Jewish ideology.

3) Because I believe that with a few exceptions Aryan probably are the only ones currently ready for this way of life. Wishful thinking does not change the fact that in many places of the world not even most moderate forms of democracy seem to work. This way of life and the thirst for freedom are part of who we are.

III. What are the goals of Aryan Anarchism?

The return to a way of life worthy for a human being, the return to freedom, dignity, independence, self-reliance, justice, mutual aid, but based on individual initiative, not forced equalisation. The goal is a society that offers as much freedom as possible without loosing stability or civilisation.

What humanity needs to develop is freedom, freedom is the matter of spirit, the nourishment the mind needs to reach it’s full capacity.

“As the essence of Matter is Gravity, so, on the other hand, we may affirm that the substance, the essence of Spirit is Freedom.”

— G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), “The Philosophy of History”

IV. How is anarchism related to the old Aryan way of life?

It’s how our ancestors lived, the old Germanic people for example preserved this way of life for thousands of years till they eventually became infected by Christianity and other harmful Jewish ideologies. I will take the old Germanic people as reference for the old Aryan way of life since based on their isolated status they had the best chances to preserve their way of life.

  • Direct Democracy & Justice:

“Affairs of smaller moment the chiefs determine: about matters of higher consequence the whole nation deliberates; yet in such sort, that whatever depends upon the pleasure and decision of the people, is examined and discussed by the chiefs. Where no accident or emergency intervenes, they assemble upon stated days, either, when the moon changes, or is full: since they believe such seasons to be the most fortunate for beginning all transactions. Neither in reckoning of time do they count, like us, the number of days but that of nights. In this style their ordinances are framed, in this style their diets appointed; and with them the night seems to lead and govern the day. From their extensive liberty this evil and default flows, that they meet not at once, nor as men commanded and afraid to disobey; so that often the second day, nay often the third, is consumed through the slowness of the members in assembling. They sit down as they list, promiscuously, like a crowd, and all armed.

In the assembly it is allowed to present accusations, and to prosecute capital offences. Punishments vary according to the quality of the crime. Traitors and deserters they hang upon trees. Cowards, and sluggards, and unnatural prostitutes they smother in mud and bogs under an heap of hurdles. Such diversity in their executions has this view, that in punishing of glaring iniquities, it behooves likewise to display them to sight; but effeminacy and pollution must be buried and concealed. In lighter transgressions too the penalty is measured by the fault, and the delinquents upon conviction are condemned to pay a certain number of horses or cattle. Part of this mulct accrues to the King or to the community, part to him whose wrongs are vindicated, or to his next kindred. In the same assemblies are also chosen their chiefs or rulers, such as administer justice in their villages and boroughs. To each of these are assigned an hundred persons chosen from amongst the populace, to accompany and assist him, men who help him at once with their authority and their counsel.”

— Tacitus (55-115A.D.), on Germany

  • Mutual aid based on individual initiative, not forced equalisation, or collectivism:

“In social feasts, and deeds of hospitality, no nation upon earth was ever more liberal and abounding. To refuse admitting under your roof any man whatsoever, is held wicked and inhuman. Every man receives every comer, and treats him with repasts as large as his ability can possibly furnish. When the whole stock is consumed, he who has treated so hospitably guides and accompanies his guest to the next house, though neither of them invited. Nor avails it, that they were not; they are there received, with the same frankness and humanity. Between a stranger and an acquaintance, in dispensing the rules and benefits of hospitality, no difference is made.”

— Tacitus (55-115A.D.), on Germany

V. What’s so bad about collectivism?

“’s life is a permanent war, war with want, war with nature, war with his fellows, and consequently war with himself. The theory of a peaceful equality, founded on fraternity and sacrifice, is only a counterfeit of the Catholic doctrine of renunciation of the goods and pleasures of this world, the principle of beggary, the panegyric of misery. Man may love his fellow well enough to die for him; he does not love him well enough to work for him.”

— Proudhon (1809-1865), “The Philosophy of Misery”

“Monopoly is the natural opposite of competition. This simple observation suffices, as we have remarked, to overthrow the utopias based upon the idea of abolishing competition, as if its contrary were association and fraternity. Competition is the vital force which animates the collective being: to destroy it, if such a supposition were possible, would be to kill society.”

— Proudhon (1809-1865), “The Philosophy of Misery”

Short, fair competition is not just healthy but nessassary for society to function. In the first Soviet union for example people did not more than was absolutly nesessary because there was simply no motoivation for them to do more than was nessassery! Society went down! People were starving because the productivivity was, well, utter shit! Capitalism and communism have an identical goal; the total monopolisation of the economy, capitalism uses predator-monopolisation, communism enforced collectivism; these and anti-these! This antinomy is what we have to overcome.

VI. Who were the first modern anarchist thinker?

William Godwin I believe, in his “Enquiry Concerning Political Justice”, published in 1793, was the first modern thinker who pointed out that ex-specially in small communities there exists no real need for a centralised form of government. Under heavy pressure he later deserted from his prior position that small communities could do well without any centralised form of government. Godwin was born in 1756 and he died in 1836.

After Godwin came the French metaphysician, and economist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Proudhon, who was born in 1809, was one of the first and probably most influential anarchist thinkers. Proudhon was also the father of an alternative economic system which is neither based on socialism/communism nor capitalistic principles, a true alternative to the judeo-slave-economy seen in capitalism and communism alike. Who was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon?

“Socialism and political economy (Adams Smiths mysticism), then, while waging a burlesque war, pursue in reality the same idea, — the organization of labor. But both are guilty of disloyalty to science and of mutual calumny, when on the one hand political economy (Adams Smiths mysticism), mistaking for science its scraps of theory, denies the possibility of further progress; and when socialism, abandoning tradition, aims at reestablishing society on undiscoverable bases. Thus socialism is nothing but a profound criticism and continual development of political economy; and, to apply here the celebrated aphorism of the school, Nihil est in intellectu, quod non prius fuerit in sensu, there is nothing in the socialistic hypotheses which is not duplicated in economic practice.”

— Proudhon (1809-1865), “The Philosophy of Misery”

“The economic system based on the fiction of the productivity of capital, justifiable once, is henceforth illegitimate. Its inefficacy and malfeasance have been exposed; it is the cause of all existing misery, the present mainstay of that old fiction of representative government which is the last form of tyranny among men.”

— Proudhon
(1809-1865) , Interest and Principal (These letters, addressed to Frederic Bastiat, an economist, originally appeared in a debate published in The Voice of the People, in 1849.)

VII. What were Proudhon’s ideas?

I will try to provide a short overview of the basics of Proudhonism:

1) A society with membership in communities based on free contracts

2) An economic systems that makes an end to the superiority of capital over recources, capitalist over worker, which is one of the main reasons for the huge economical inequality we have today.

3) The abolishion of usury and interest (it’s possible without crippling investments)

4) A new kind of currency that makes an end to inflation (Frei Geld/Free Money)

Basically is about fair trade, free trade is only so far regulated as it is needed to keep fairness, which is the only way to guarantee free trade since a lack of fairness leads to monopolisation, the end of free trade.

“If employers of labour were offered money-capital at half the present rate of interest, the yield of every other class of capital would soon also fall to half. If, for example, interest on the money borrowed to build a house is less than the rent of a similar existing house, or if it is more profitable to bring a waste into cultivation than to rent similar farmland, competition must inevitably reduce house and farm rents to the level of the reduced interest on money. For the surest method of depreciating material capital (a house, a field) is obviously to create and operate additional material capital alongside it. But it is a law of economics that increased production increases the mass of available money-capital. This tends to raise wages and finally to reduce interest to zero.”

–- Proudhon (1809-1865), “What is Property?”

“Proudhon showed socialists over fifty years ago that uninterrupted hard work is the only method of successfully attacking capital. But this truth is even further from their comprehension to-day than it was in Proudhon’s time.

Proudhon, indeed, has not been entirely forgotten, but he has never been properly understood. If his advice had been understood and acted on, there would now be no such thing as capital. Because he was mistaken in his method (the exchange banks), his theory as a whole was discredited.

How was it that the Marxian theory of capital succeeded in ousting that of Proudhon and in giving sovereign sway to cornmunistic socialism ? How is it that Marx and his theory are spoken of by every newspaper in the world ? Some have suggested as a reason the hopelessness, and the corresponding harmlessness, of the Marxian doctrine. “No capitalist is afraid of his theory, just as no capitalist is afraid of the Christian doctrine; it is therefore positively an advantage to capital to have Marx and Christ discussed as widely as possible, for Marx can never damage capital. But beware of Proudhon; better keep him out of sight and hearing! He is a dangerous fellow since there is no denying the truth of his contention that if the workers were allowed to remain at work without hindrance, disturbance or interruption, capital would soon be choked by an over-supply of capital (not to be confused with an over-production of goods). Proudhon’s suggestion for attacking capital is a dangerous one, since it can be put into practice forth-with. The Marxian programme speaks of the tremendous productive capacity of the present-day trained worker equipped with modem machinery and tools, but Marx cannot put this tremendous productive capacity to use, whereas in the hands of Proudhon it becomes a deadly weapon against capital. Therefore talk away, harp on Marx, so that Proudhon may be forgotten.”

— Silvio Gesell (1862-1930), “The Natural Economic Order”

Proudhon was highly intelligent, that’s I believe was one of the reasons why his ideas did not succeed, the majority of people simply could not understand what he was talking about. To be honest, his second book, “The Philosophy of Misery”, gave me a hard time trying to figure out what he was talking about as well! Some parts I had to read multiple times and really give it some thought till I finaly understood. Proudhon was a genius far ahead of his time.

VIII. Basic principles of anarchism (taken from Bakunin’s “Revolutionary Catechism”):

II. Replacing the cult of God by respect and love of humanity, we proclaim human reason as the only criterion of truth; human conscience as the basis of justice; individual and collective freedom as the only source of order in society.

III. Freedom is the absolute right of every adult man to seek no other sanction for their acts than their own conscience and their own reason, being responsible first to themselves and then to the society which they have voluntarily accepted.

IV. It is not true that the freedom of one man is limited by that of other men. Man is really free to the extent that his freedom, fully acknowledged and mirrored by the free consent of his fellowmen, finds confirmation and expansion in their liberty. Man is truly free only among equally free men; the slavery of even one human being violates humanity and negates the freedom of all.

V. The freedom of each is therefore realizable only in the equality of all. The realization of freedom through equality, in principle and in fact, is justice.

VI. If there is one fundamental principle of human morality. it is freedom. To respect the freedom of your fellowman is duty; to love, help, and serve him is virtue.

VII. Absolute rejection of every authority including that which sacrifices freedom for the convenience of the state. Primitive society had no conception of freedom; and as society evolved, before the full awakening of human rationality and freedom, it passed through a stage controlled by human and divine authority. The political and economic structure of society must now be reorganized on the basis of freedom. Henceforth, order in society must result from the greatest possible realization of individual liberty, as well as of liberty on all levels of social organization.

VIII. The political and economic organization of social life must not, as at present, be directed from the summit to the base –the center to the circumference–imposing unity through forced centralization. On the contrary, it must be reorganized to issue from the base to the summit–from the circumference to the center–according to the principles of free association and federation.

IX. Isn’t anarchism an utopia, a no-place, a road to chaos?

That’s what THEY want you to believe, because THEY know that once we have successfully broken free from their authoritarian control, it will be hard to impossible for them to ever re-gain control over our life’s. People never forget the taste of freedom once they tasted it, and unity based on liberty can be a stronger defence than a standing army. The liberty of the old Germanic people for example was a force so strong and mighty that all of Roms legions were no match for it. In the dark forests of Germany more of Roms legions went lost than in all the deserts of North Africa and Egypt combined.

“In truth neither from the Samnites, nor from the Carthaginians, nor from both Spains, nor from all the nations of Gaul, have we received more frequent checks and alarms; nor even from the Parthians: for, more vigorous and invincible is the liberty of the Germans than the monarchy of the Arsacides.”

— Tacitus (55-115A.D.), on Germany

“The cities of Germany are absolutely free, they own but little country around them, and they yield obedience to the emperor when it suits them, nor do they fear this or any other power they may have near them, because they are fortified in such a way that every one thinks the taking of them by assault would be tedious and difficult, seeing they have proper ditches and walls, they have sufficient artillery, and they always keep in public depots enough for one year’s eating, drinking, and firing. And beyond this, to keep the people quiet and without loss to the state, they always have the means of giving work to the community in those labours that are the life and strength of the city, and on the pursuit of which the people are supported; they also hold military exercises in repute, and moreover have many ordinances to uphold them. … in truth there is no safe way to retain them otherwise than by ruining them. And he who becomes master of a city accustomed to freedom and does not destroy it, may expect to be destroyed by it, for in rebellion it has always the watch-word of liberty and its ancient privileges as a rallying point, which neither time nor benefits will ever cause it to forget.”

— Nicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), “The Prince”

Sure, changes of this scale will require a process of transition, for animals born in captivity can not be send back to “freedom” all at once, changing power structures is a risky process and can cause damage to architect and building alike, but it’s possible. For example dismantling states without filing the vacuum of power that fallows is a sure road to chaos. Currently regional democracy and self-organisation do not exist in Europe, or most of the rest of the world, but a federation for example, like in my “Preußenplan”, could serve as help-construct to fill the gap till the people are ready for freedom and Independence.

X. Why authoritarian control does not work:

“An eminent Belgian statistician [Quetelet] points out that society opens the way for the crimes later committed by malefactors. It follows that all attempts to combat social immorality by rigorous legislation which violates individual freedom must fail. Experience, on the contrary, demonstrates that a repressive and authoritarian system, far from preventing, only increases crime; that public and private morality falls or rises to the extent that individual liberty is restricted or enlarged. It follows that in order to regenerate society, we must first completely uproot this political and social system founded on inequality, privilege, and contempt for humanity.”

— Bakunin (1814-1876), “Revolutionary catechism”

It’s time to escape from the antinomy between the artificial left and right, position and counter-position, for as long as we fight each other instat of our oppressors, we will go nowhere anytime soon. Never forget that; adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas esto, against the enemy the right of defence is inalienable! Or like Proudhon put it; “The great are only great because we are on our knees. Let us rise!”

For a further look into the subject matter and related topics:

~ by metadave on October 2, 2007.

12 Responses to “Aryan Anarchism – An expression of the Aryan thirst for freedom”

  1. Heh. I love your insistence that everything wrong in the world is the result of ‘harmful Jewish ideologies’. That’s right, just keep deceiving yourself that there were good old days, and that you can go back to them.

  2. But that’s how it is, look at how we lived bevore we came in conntact with you and how life is now:

    – We lived in balance with nature = now we are parasites and destroy everythign in our parts

    – We lived in local communities and under direct democracy = now we have pyramid-tyranny

    – We had a society were people could trust each other = now we have a Babylon where everyone hates everyone and no one trust anybody anymore

    I could go on almost forever, it’s all you fault! FIAT currency, media control, monotonoism, communism, EU, almost everything that is harmful is of Jewish/Ashkenazi origin! Do you know what was the first thing I noticed that was not right that made me become political active? It was the prohibition of weed/herb, and you know what? Jews were responsible for that as well! Anslinger and his Jewish uncle in the paper business for example! And naturally, they were supported by the Jewish owned media in spreading all those lies about weed! All those reasons for the prohibiton gives were LIES! Just like all those reasons for the war in Iraq were lies! Filthy liying pest!

    Communism alone was responsible for at least 120.000.000 deaths!

    “Marx is a Jew and is surrounded by a crowd of little, more or less intelligent, scheming, agile, speculating Jews, just as Jews are everywhere, commercial and banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades; in short, literary brokers, just as they are financial brokers, with one foot in the bank and the other in the socialist movement, and their arses sitting upon the German press. They have grabbed hold of all newspapers, and you can imagine what a nauseating literature is the outcome of it. Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, Marx feels an instinctive inclination and a great respect for the Rothschilds. This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists there must inevitably exist a state central bank, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates upon the labor of the people, will always find the means for its existence… In reality, this would be for the proletariat a barrack regime, under which the workingmen and the working closely and intimately connected with one another, regarless not only of frontiers but of political differences as well – this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschil. I am sure that, on the one hand, the Rothschilds appreciate the merits of Marx, and that on the other hand, women, converted into a uniform mass, would rise, fall asleep, work and live at the beat of the drum; the privilege of ruling would be in the hands of the skilled and the learned, with a wide scope left for profitable crooked deals carried on by the Jews, who would be attracted by the enormous extension of the international speculations of the national banks…” (Polémique contres les Juifs)

    — BAKUNYIN, MIKHYL. 19th century Russian revolutionary.

  3. For an Australian Nartional Anarchist/New Right group, please visit our website or our blog

    If any of you want to get in contact with us, just e-mail us through the contact section

  4. this makes so much sense, because anarchism is totally about racism/anti-semitism. y’all are a joke.

  5. Keep up the good work all you need is the support of those of us who believe in the same like minded ideals . There are alot of us out here that have the same beliefs and ideals. We will be the ones that inherit the earth .

  6. “There will no longer be nationality, no longer fatherland, in the political sense of the words: they will mean only places of birth. Whatever a man’s race or colour, he is really a native of the universe; he has citizen’s rights everywhere.”
    — Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

    • Now that’s an interesting quote Meta-dave forgot to mention…While I agree with the basic anarchist philosophies you have written here, and it is a fine,well researched article, your blaming of the jewish race and society seems maladjusted. Obviously I am conditionedmby my social influences as are you, and we will likely never agree, but incorporating someone’s race based on the society that enslaved them and drove the politics and religion across the world is poor. They are enslaved,not only to an ancient society, but to the outer pressures of racial prejudice, which forces them away from liberating ideaologies such as anarchism. Eastern countries are much harder to promote to fairer forms of society because it is so intrenched there. Like you said, Europe has been conquered again and again by different ideals, religions and countries, so our history of freedoms is much more fluid. Asia and the middle east have had the same few main religions for thousands of years. We should try for anarchism in our own societies first, act as an example, rather than take the attitude held since the rise of Western culture, which has been “We’re going to jolly well sort you lot out, tell you that you’re savage scum who won’t learn a good thing when you see it, and then wonder why there’s a resistance and that you hate us.” It happenedmin the crusades, the American voyages,

    • That quote continues “…Citizenship is everywhere an acquired right. As in a limited territory the municipality represents the Republic, and wields the authority, each nation in the globe”

      His idea wasn’t forced multiculturalism either. He was pro-balkanization. And that was the young Proudhon. As he grew older – he became more and more of a nationalist.

  7. Whoops, wrong button. Umm… The British victorian empire, and America’s wars on communism and terror respectively. I seem a bit of an idiot now my comment’s in two parts. Hmmm. Sorry. Thanks for the article, which gave me some interesting points, let me rant and be offended by your racism, as there’s nothing a left-wing hypocrite loves more than feeling smug behind a keyboard, defending their views and then not replicating them in real life. Thanks.

  8. Wow, you describe such a wonderful utopic anarchist society where people are respected and treated as free autonomous and equal individuals. Too bad some are excluded because they dared to be born Jewish with ‘harmful ideologies’ clearly encoded into their genes.
    What should we do with these pesky unwanted Jews and their harmful ideologies then? Lock them up in concentration camps so they can’t pollute your idyllic anarchist society?
    Hitler would applaud you, but most actual genuine anarchists that understand the meaning of ‘self contradiction’ would happily punch you in the face for being a shameless racist bigot masquerading himself as some philosophising academic.
    I think you need to go back and re-read all your books before you quote them since you have obviously not understood that anarchism and racism do not mix.

  9. Way to fail, Aryan. Way to fail.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: