Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

‘Do not look for solutions in this book – there are none; in general

modern man has no solutions.’

-Alexander Herzen


Why does the why never arise?

Why are people so afraid of the rain? It is any coincidence that they hold hostile the
substance that sustains them, the same way as they do everything else which is truly life

We all retain our virginity at least metaphorically: “All virgins are liars honey”.

People who are laid back or at ease with themselves are always mistaken by the nervous in
temperament as being awkward.

First impressions are deadly. With this we cast aside further enquiry. Ignorance and faulty
reasoning usually suffices.

When a machine malfunctions we say it has “a mind of its own.” A parable for 21st century
mutual man.

In any age, who is it that is heard best or commands the most authority?
-The most illiterate.

How can one make sure one is always heard? Never have anything to say.

The intent behind a theory is more important than the theory itself.

All truisms are inevitably clichés. Are they therefore any less true?

Self-contempt is easily confused with self-confidence.

‘A is for apple’. The original form of tyranny.

Is it worthwhile to say that we live in ‘the best of possible worlds’?
–No world conforms to the dictionary!

A label is a weak minds excuse for an I.D.

Logic is a sane mans excuse for a censor.

You actually find that people are fairly tolerant when they genuinely have something to
complain about. It is the rest of the time when we must bear the brunt of their animosity.

The two essentials for every self styled philosopher: A hammer and a good pair of walking

‘Think outside the mould!’ said the great sage. So do educators of our day but did any of
them actually see beyond its rim?

All high mindedness stems from nothing but self-interest and self-deceit.

If one cannot escape ones temperament, the next best thing? Create a rational for it.

Making a virtue out of what one cannot help but do. Such a person grows contemptuous of
the shallow and easy way of life lead by the majority only from that person’s own inability to
do the same.

Any such high-mindedness would instantly become abandoned if the contemptible
complacency were at all possible!

Not good listeners. All thinkers are bad at listening. They do not converse through listening
and responding. They usually engage in inauthentic conversation as they are always too
busy considering their next statement for when it ‘their turn’ to speak. Thinkers talk at each
other furthering their own causes, the other being merely an object upon which they vent
their internal dialogues.

The unmutual in our midst: All great artists are initially great failures at some other more
‘practical’ enterprise. Their greatness then, stems more from their own inherent inability to fit
in with the norm, than any truly loftier ambitions.

Knowing your contemporaries is another way of patronizing them.

The philosophers chat up line: truth is always ugly and woman is far from truth!

“You’ve got no sense of humour!” said the bigot to the black. Thus all racism is associated
with ‘good humour’.

No human activity has an end. That which we consider as such is merely a falling out of the

Everything is permitted does not mean everything is physically possible.

To follow moral values blindly as given by the state is just as contemptible as if we were still
operating under divine law.

In life it causes great agony that it is possible for people to be thinking of each other without
the person in question knowing, or being able to be there in their heads to defend himself.

Guilty men are not the only ones who ‘always want mitigation’.

The altruist in all of us is ashamed of being proud. The nihilist in us is proud of being

Being knowledgeable on topics of interest is not a form of intelligence.

The things we ‘learn’ and the things we ‘learn about’ have nothing in common with each

When knowledge becomes intelligible we call it thinking but not all thinking is intelligible.

No bedroom thinker ever brought about any change.

Exaggeration stems from discontent.

Hope is usually a sign of desperation.

Politics can never be straightforward. There are always shoes seemingly designed not to fit
on either the left nor right foot.

Adherence to a political doctrine is of another matter than support for its historical examples
or adherents.

The working classes have always needed enlightenment to their potential historic
significance, yet it is in their nature to act contrary to their interests.
Whoever has spent five minutes with the British working class will see that they do not
deserve revolution. It is more for the exploited abroad that it is vital to give them one.

Everything in its antithesis? Is that why those in our age with the appearance of barbarians
are the least barbarous? And those who wear suits are…

Everything in its antithesis. At last! We now understand why the British perceive themselves
as lion hearted….

Sticklers for the rules always mistake indifference for rebellion.

You rebels! On the contrary most of the time we are merely too stoical to bother to conform.

It is not the disobeyal of rules, which is, disliked as such, more the lack of fear for them.

Sisyphus: that great trickster who defied the Greek gods. Was he an unmutual? Well he
hauled his rock all the same!

If we went to work for the pleasure of it, the only person out of a job would have been Marx.

We all live out the myth of Sisyphus on a 9-5 basis. He is to Marx what Oedipus is to Freud.

Why is there such a drastic margin between what people uphold in ideals and what they
uphold in reality? If someone considers ‘people’ above ‘profit’ in an ideal it is called virtuous
yet in reality receives nothing but condemnation.

All hail the revolution! (But only outside of working hours) These ‘part time Napoleons’ with
all their ideals they’ll never see through…. Revolt but not beyond the practical!

It is okay to slander big business, as long as it’s back to work on Monday to perpetuate its

‘Shopping in the ‘real’ world!’ Thus all company executives are obliged to be metaphysicians.

What about shopping in the phenomenal world? Do these people have any senses of the self
for such acuteness?

What is usually termed disobedience is merely obedience to a different cultural set of values.

We are conformists one and all! Deviants merely conform to different stereotypes or value
systems than the norm.

When people talk of rebellion they merely mistake that which a person owes alliance to.

Liberty or freedom? Through the very nature of participating in the democratic process we
are agreeing to our liberties being curtailed. As long as it is still a matter of personal choice
liberties become socially agreed boundaries. Liberty situated in a community therefore is a
negotiation of socially agreed boundaries. In this way liberty parades as freedom, to act
according to our own decisions. This is not true freedom, we merely become self-regulating!

As an animal, man is governed by group or social dynamics. This association by its very
nature creates limits on individual freedom. By association we are part of the participation of
the system. If we do not participate we are subject to the decisions of others and become

The existence of any rules or government of any type inevitably cannot lead to anything
other than oppression, as governments only exist to reinforce the interests of the ruling
class. Engagement with our form of government is not possible unless the populace feel that
that government is ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’. The very existence of
the crown, contradicts the idea of liberty because it is a symbol that the people are not the
sovereign power of the nation.

Appearance of the morbid, mindless, cheerfulness: Just modest, mitigation of the mind!

Mutual man is like a self-portrait of himself in that a portrait is never what it represents. He
has always been contrary to himself.

Why is it always assumed that recognition and ‘success’ are irreseperable? To grow and
evolve naturally as a person under a spot light or on a pedestal is not easily possible. There
are other successes, which are their own reward and infinitely more valuable than a
moment’s vanity, or a lifetime in an ivory tower. These other successes are of that other
system of values, which we unmutuals adhere to. So it is easy to understand the
misunderstanding and potential disappointment that a person can cause when they adhere
to an opposite value system.

Self respect in its antithesis. Do these people who obsess over self-respect even have a self?

The existential nausea or inauthentic one-dimensional man. All these people who talk about
self-respect. In their mind, self-respect is to totally betray what one is for the frivolous.

If one remains true to what one is, it is treated with nothing but contempt from these
decadent self-styled self-respecters. To do what is respectful in their eyes is to act contrary
to your own sense of self and to deny your own will.
Do the ‘self decided-self respecters’ want us to be happy? More closely they want us to act in
a way that will make them happy.

Happiness is merely another term for complacency. Do people who play the game of ‘being
happy’ ever achieve anything?

We western hypocrites sat amongst our splendours of wealth and waste. The thing most
important to a contented life is to never remain content.

The ‘Good’ does not exist in itself it is always a consequence of ulterior motives.

The Greek tragedians were the highest upholders of life as through that state they achieved a
level of intensity never paralleled since. Those pre-Socratic ecstatic geniuses recognised
tragedy as the highest emotive state.

Is it really so difficult to understand that someone may wish contrary to that which is
supposedly best for them? It is only here that true free will prevails!

All social society is totally administered and by its very nature is structured to trap us
through our wants and needs. The best chains are those we go out to buy ourselves.

A steady relationship is the most damaging thing to freedom; governments constantly rely
on our ability to fall into such relationships to keep us in line. We must do what is expected
of us, that which is deemed honourable which can be achieved in no other way than total
reliance on the system. Governments rely on us to do the ‘right thing’, to keep us bound in
those proverbial chains.

Can anyone seriously name a major philosopher who was married? (Okay so everyone can
name Socrates, name a second).

In order to ‘ignore someone’ one has to have been paid the slightest bit of attention in the
first place.

The ‘ignored’ or really merely the absence of our sucking up to a persons inner arrogance.
Vanity is offended as it is always thinking of its owed attention.

These people with their lives so constantly on display. With their every action needing to be
pronounced. Such offence is caused when it draws away from their inner deception that they
are neither their own navel stone nor anyone else’s.

God: Santa Claus for adults. “Act thus or else!”

The token philistines opinion: “All religion is bollocks!” can we refute that? He has faith that
it is bollocks!

We have previously considered the concept of god as a metaphysical concept. But don’t all
problem theories that cannot be left alone end up being defined as metaphysical?

Everlasting life? Don’t we follow our habits and mindless routines long enough already?
Belief is not knowledge a priori; it is the lack of it.

If there is a heaven, does it contain the same mind numbing commodities as on earth?

The fact that there is no real after life will not stop us from burning in metaphorical hell.

The fact that men have believed in god is probably in itself the best refutation of such an

What kind of ‘eternal reward’ could we expect? To grow even more complacent, towards
anything worthwhile?

When Jesus fed the thousands the only thing he taught them was dependence.

Socrates’ plagiarism by anticipation of Christ’s sacrifice, lead the way to escapist
romanticism for dubious moral convictions.

Rudolf the reindeer became a decadent ‘On that foggy night’.

Is it any wonder we supposedly ‘find God’ after death? The whole concept of God is anti-life!

A confession: I’m such a weakling I’m surprised I’m not a Christian.

The concept of God is truly pataphysical. It is contradictory and it makes beautiful sense.

The bible says to love ones neighbour. Perhaps, but only until her husband returns home.

The concept of the funeral is more of a grave for out dated religious beliefs than for
individuals concerned. The whole funeral ceremony too is like a contradiction of our secular

The supposed separation of art and religion in the enlightenment was the pivotal moment in
which the great ‘opium of the people’ was split.

Why is art still entangled with religion? The pleasant deception still deceives us!

“All true works of art have no practical function!” Has religion ever had a practical function?

The arts and all that are deemed to have beauty are really decadent concepts. Whatever is
upheld in an age is that which is also the norm and nothing but a whim of the times. It is
therefore really the most common that is considered to have beauty.

Whatever is deemed beauties antithesis is therefore considered ugly. Whatever is different
will appear as such. The beautiful then are the masters of the present while to be ugly is to
be more interesting and worthwhile to the future. We unmutuals are then almost obliged to
be ugly on principle!

Children always think only of themselves and want, want; want, without reason or idea of the
why. – How many people in life really ever progress beyond that stage?

Are children then by their nature rational egoists?

There is no human action, which cannot be explained beyond the desire to makes ones
parents proud or to rebel against that impulse.

Having a family is a lot like third world debt: Neither can ever be paid off.

If it is true that existence precedes essence, then we are not obliged to be a part of the family
unit. We have no part in the decision of our existence and therefore we cannot be indebted
for it. It is only later with upbringing and reliance on the parent figures that we become
obliged to them.

As Hegel once said upon learning of a sibling, “Previously I was the accidental part, now I am
the essential one.”

It is with the family’s long history and roots that we are compelled to be a part of which
makes it a great threat to freedom. Society relies upon our weakness to live up to these
expectations to hold us in check.

But why are statements of this kind always misunderstood? If one accepts that one owes
ones parents nothing for having brought one into existence, and that one owes ones family
nothing, merely for that one is related to them. Does that mean that one has decided this
because one wants to cast them off? Does one say this because one despises them? Is one
saying this out of cold rationality? It doesn’t occur to people that it means nothing but that in
this way one can love one family all that much more, an impassioned and far more genuine
love, not merely because one is obliged to them through material processes?

Egoism is not the same as vanity. It is merely an acceptance of our inner nature. It is not
something of which to hold ourselves in high esteem over, nor to be suppressed.

Rational egoism is not a simple form of atheism. The absence of god to the average atheist is
no more than a point of indifference. To the unmutuals among us, rational egoism is holier
than god!

Every great philosophy by its very nature inevitably has something of the tyrant in it.

Causes aren’t always reasons.

It is always to the misinformed that we look when wanting to hear of the fantastic or the
impossible. ‘Such and such happened, how impossible it seems!’ It is usually because of a
logic defect when such announcements are exclaimed.

It is the misunderstanding of cause and effect. Everything that has ever happened occurred
for a reason, and always for perfectly normal reasons, which have merely been missed. The
paranormal therefore, and everything metaphysical in the world, in its natural state a priori is
almost boringly straightforward. The problem lies in our perception of the natural.

There is no such thing as blame. To suggest otherwise would be to attach a false value
judgement to actions.

Cause & effect. Reasons only have objective consequences regardless of our preferences for
certain outcomes.

All actions and events in the world are objective. It is only our self-centred senses that blind
us to this. Things are ‘what they are’ a priori.

There are no purposeful actions outside of our experience.

To rely on the concept of blame is to deny the responsibility for actions.

Classifying people as evil is almost like absolving them of blame for their actions. By
attributing actions to an inherent essence like quality, defined as evil is almost like saying,
‘they couldn’t help it! Their evilness made them do it! Everything is permitted does not
therefore refer to merely the act, but also the consequences, and the responsibility we take
for those consequences must be taken into account.

What people ‘want’ can never have any bearing on empirical reality.

When we acquire intuition we are more fully in touch with the world a priori than when we
directly experience the world a posteriori.

Kant’s conception of metaphysics has at its core the pinnings of a lovesick puppy. The idea
that a thing only occurs if a being is present to perceive it is an elaboration on a lovers
actions seeming pointless to the self when the loved one is not present as witness.

How can we prove that we or anything outside of us really exists? We can’t, yet we are all at
least experiencing entities so we may as well live as if we exist.

Try to explain metaphysics to business minded people who never shut up about ‘The real

All inertia: consequence of a conscious mind!.

Ripped kicking and screaming out of the state of nature. When human kind acquired
consciousness it was the single most traumatic experience that a biological species had ever

Why is it presumed that being ‘in’ existence is more important than being ‘out’ of existence?
Surely the fact that we spend a far greater portion of time in non-existence shows us that
nothingness is our natural state?

All afterlife theories are attempts to impose some form of existence on what is really its

The fact that we enter existence from non-existence and then return does not point to any
form of eternal recurrence.

Existence is but a temporary respite from non-existence, which is really our natural state. To
fear death then is as absurd as fearing birth.

Bearing in mind the infinitely long period that has elapsed with the self or any self out of
existence, is it merely coincidence that the self is found to be in existence at the present

We seem to jump into existence at a random point with so much having transpired, that when
we pass again out of existence the universe and all matter within it of which we once formed
a part continue ontologically. It is our necessary solipsistic subjective delusion that all is
done with, yet it must continue in our absence.

What is the spark from which our consciousness stems? To be instantly plucked from
nothingness after five billion years, only to return to it after a mere seventy.

In what way does our individual non-existence correspond to that of the universe? For a time
the universe existed outside of our own non-existence, yet it also sprang out of the void in
much the same way as ourselves. Does our non-existence therefore differ in the time of the
universes existence to that when it has ceased? Can we speak of solipsism for the universes
existence, without it experiencing itself subjectively as we do for individual

“Life is pointless I shall cease to live”, contrasted to the unmutuals: ‘Life is pointless, so
what do I have to lose!’

To remain true to suicide, it must occur from neglect. To ‘fall out of the habit of living’ as
Dostoyevsky’s underground man would have had it.

“Caught in the act!” On the contrary one has to be bothered about the concealment of the act
to be considered ‘caught’.

In a band it is best to be the singer as you can feel the lyrics. Everyone else has the
misfortune of having to listen to them.

Sportsmen are the true philosophers. They are the ones who face the tree in the forest
question head on. ‘If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is present, does it make a sound?’
The sportsman never leaves any doubt as to the noise that the tree makes in fact they make
the tree so loud that everyone they know hears the noise of the tree present or not, when it
hits the ground.

All sportsmen recognize and understand the first step on the path towards the genuine. They
battle the solipsistic notion that if others don't see an event as far as they are concerned it
didn't really happen. The tree doesn't make a sound; it doesn't even budge an inch. That is
why such people are so obsessed with putting their every action before the crowd.

The second rule on the path towards the genuine: no sooner are all events on constant
public display the true intent behind them is instantly and forever thrown into doubt. Is the
individual expressing his obsessive thoughts, passions and inner desires or is he putting on
machismo or literary airs?

Not everyone needs freedom and that is most true of the sportsman. Is it any wonder
sportsmen parade about classified by numbers?

It is in the sportsman’s nature to be a part of ‘The herd’. In any society it is always that which
is base, stupid and ignorant, which is upheld as an ideal. Sports stars are promoted as role
models, smashing each other’s brains out keeping the rest of the populace entertained so
that it doesn’t occur to them to do anything productive with the free time in their lives. When
was the last time there was a role model promoted who actually inspired anything but the
base instincts?

In ancient times when the ruling class could not afford to indulge in their favourite pastime
any longer, when they could not afford to wage war anymore, what did they do? They built
coliseums and arenas to house brutal chariot games, primitive versions of soccer games and
the like.

In short the ancients invented sport as an alternative way to show their macho ‘superiority’
over others. They needed another way to vent their frustrations on others and above all they
needed to look big in public. Has the sportsman really changed that much over the

The word ‘truth’ is a troublemaker. It means something different to everyone. Whatever is
perceived will be believed.

The concept of the world that we consider, built up in our heads from books or TV. Never the
world itself.

Our travel experiences only give us a fleetingly better glimpse of the world. A snapshot. We
could spend our whole lives trying to understand the real and penetrate but the surface.

How absurd the notion of absolute truth is!

Primordial truth is of another nature to the day-to-day deceptions we employ as truth in order
to enable ourselves to live in comfort.

It is more the illusion of truths worthiness that is of concern to us than truth in itself.

We humans. Convinced a priori that truth is good or even relevant to our condition when
even the most passive look at our history books would tell us otherwise!

Why not lie and cheat, as that is always what has benefited us the most!

Ontological falsehood has become a solipsistic experimentation with reality. The deceiver
becomes the artistic architect of tomorrow. In a world devoid of eternal values the artist
becomes the creator of new solipsistic and temporal values, and new conceptions as to the
boundaries of ‘truth’.

The appearance of ontological truth does not discredit poetic ways of seeing the world.
Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey will always have their power, regardless of whether the Trojan war
was historic or not. The fact remains that through these poems, Homer defined and created
the morality of the Hellenic world. This is how every age acquires its truths and values.

Nihilism, the void and self deception can only be avoided through solipsistic, temporal and
personal values and truths.

All art schools teach that nothing can be created in a void. (Even art tutors dismiss god’s

The task of the unmutual: creation of solipsistic values as the attempt to follow God’s
example. To create from nothingness.

Sophism: artistic licence given free reign on truth!

Post-modernism: first experiment with the notion of solipsistic values!

The unmutual: The Overman overcame!

All these things, which we unmutual's do not believe in! (And neither does that which we
leave intact count as belief!)

There is not necessarily any truth expressed here within, but I can at least admit that I have
failed to lie…