THE UNMUTUAL BOOK 2: THE PARABLE OF MUTUAL MAN

1. GENEALOGY OF THE GODS

To many the concept of god and the existence of such a being, whether in a metaphysical
or an empirical sense is either, in the case of the believer, not something which need be
questioned, and in the mind of the sceptic or the atheist usually not something worthy of the
time to consider. Even Jean-Paul Sartre admitted that even if god did exist it would change
precious little of his existentialist convictions. But it still remains to be explored, whether god
exists or not, just where did we get this idea? God is other. By the very nature of the idea it
should be unknowable to us. So how does the conviction of this ever-unseen presence
justify itself? The ideas we have had about gods should be explored to their origins.
Genealogy is a form of historical critique, which has the capability to overturn our norms
through revealing their origins, and it is through genealogy that we shall explore this subject.

‘We must try to return in history to that ‘zero point’ in the course of madness
when it was suddenly separated from reason- both in the confinement of the
insane and in the conceptual isolation of madness from reason, as
unreason.’1

2. FIRST CREATIONS

When human kind first acquired consciousness it was the single most traumatic experience
that a biological species had ever experienced. Before, we had merely followed the instinct
of nature, the same as every other species on the planet, as one with the rest of the natural
machinery of the world, which propagates and diversifies life at such a rate, with the ‘why?’
never arising. But when the why arose in humankind with it came conscience and guilt,
which could not be explained through the as yet primitive understandings. Emotions had to
have a first cause, yet it has always been our emotions with which we have had problems,
both dealing with and accepting them. As we now were able to operate beyond the limits of
all other species, freedom arose along with a human conscience, which brought with it a
deep feeling of guilt that escalated along with our development. These were the direct
consequences of our exile from the state of nature.

‘Nature commands every animal, and the beast obeys. Man experiences the
same impulsion, but he is free to comply or resist; and it is above all the
awareness of this freedom that reveals the spirituality of his soul, for
physics in someway explains the mechanism of the senses and the formation
of ideas.’2

It was with the formation of one among our earliest of ideas that lead us astray. When the
emotions began to prey more heavily upon the conscience the first cause for this feeling
was seemingly absent. What could be the reason for this new sense? This sense acquired
upon the verge of innocence became known as guilt. With no way to purge this feeling and
no way to live beyond the feeling that this was the consequence of some terrible unknown
crime, the individual turned in upon the self. In this act of mistaken accountability we gained

1 Foucault, Michel, ‘Madness and Civilisation- A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason’.
2 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, ‘Discourse On Inequality’.

1
the need for an exterior factor, in regards to our new realisations. The emotions here
contained could not be repressed internally forever. The burden of responsibility became too
great and so an exterior focal point was needed. Now that human kind did not have to rely
on instinct, like all other species, we came to mistrust it. With conscience we acquired
freedom, but this was not seen as a blessing, it became a curse. In a sense primitive man
was faced with one of the same dilemmas that modern man has faced, that of facing and
trying to live life, without the aid of eternal values. In his innocence this was too daunting a
prospect. The only way we could deal with these feelings was by suppressing them and
placing this newfound responsibility for ourselves in the hands of some other force, which
was created, for our convenience, out of our first act of self-deception. But from where did
we acquire the inspiration for such an act of desperation?
The answer is simple and common knowledge. Early humankind worshipped the Sun. So in
a way the ancients would be correct in stating that god created the Earth, as the Earth was
created through a process known as ecretion, from the debris of the Sun. They would also
be correct in the assertion that this ‘god’ created the human race, as all the matter
contained in our solar system was created in the boiling furnace that is the Sun.
Whether the ancients were aware of this coincidence is not within the scope of this essay.
But what it means is that between the terror of their predicament and the hostile nature of
the world in which they inhabited, the burden of responsibility had been lifted. This solar disc
was the perfect focus for worship. As the centuries passed the personification of this solar
body became commonplace. Narratives were developed as to its movements; monuments
were erected in its alignment. It wasn’t enough though. In the long run, one deity was far too
little and it wasn’t long before a whole pantheon of gods were created, from the movements
of the other, fixed and far more distant stars. But let us not be in any doubt as to the true
motive behind this desperate act of creation, and there cannot be a better example of this
than in ancient Greece.

‘Throughout the longest period of their history the Greeks used their gods
for no purpose than to keep ‘bad conscience’ at bay, to be allowed to enjoy
their souls… They went very far in this direction, these magnificent child-
minds with the courage of lions; and no lesser authority than that of the
Homeric Zeus himself on occasion gives them to understand that they are
making things too easy for themselves.’3

So here we find that instead of dealing with our new realizations, we invented god, a master
through which moral codes could be administered to follow. We invented good and evil, right
and wrong as something to be desperately relied upon so that we could live a content and
cowardly existence. Here managing to rid ourselves of any chance to achieve our true
potential as individuals. The creation of a supreme deity was no small feat, especially for
our supposed earliest of ancestors, but with this humankind forgot all about its newfound
sense of freedom and in blissful ignorance, blundered its way onto the path to civilisation.

3. PRECESSION

With observation of the stars the ancients gradually devised an entire system of worship,
which differed across a vast amount of religions worldwide. An essay could be filled
following these diversities in themselves, however that is not the point. The point here being
put across is a more general one of humankind’s dependence upon these systems in order
to maintain the illusion of control.

3 Nietzsche, Friedrich, ‘On The Genealogy of Morals’.

2
 A key element in this area that has come down to us through the ages is the concept of the
sky as a giant clock foretelling the ages of the Earth, which have come before and during
human times. This phenomenon, known as the precession of the Equinoxes, discovered in
a time when we were beginning to understand the mechanics of the night sky, could lock a
specific time and message into the ground as time with the observation of the stars is
directly proportional to the movement of the Earth.
This phenomenon is caused by the slow wobble in the tilt of the Earths axis over a long
period of time. It had a very important influence on the ancients, as to them it was no mere
accident in the orientation of the Earth in space as cause, but something of divine
significance from above. Because of this phenomenon, with the tilt of the Earth, the night
sky appears to rotate, this being most obviously apparent along the ecliptic plane where the
constellations we know as the zodiac are situated. This is a very slow rotation however and
it takes 72 years to move 1 degree and a complete rotation, also known as a great year,
takes approximately 26,000 years so you can imagine how many centuries of observation
were required before it was discovered. This is what also creates different astronomical
‘ages’ of the sun, which the ancients referred to, as each zodiac sign spends approximately
2,000 years in conjunction with the sun (as seen on the summer solstice). During the age of
Taurus, for example, texts and folk tales abounded with imagery of the bull, as with
proceeding ages. The most recent age, that of Pisces began in approximately 4BCE and
heralded in the Christian revolution with the image of the fish.

4. CULT OF THE ESSENES

So we may now understand the concept of god in a new context. Throughout the ages, ever
since that fatal first act of self-deception, we have looked to the stars for inspiration on how
to worship our gods. The advent of the age of Pisces was merely a prompt for a new era of
worship, which turned out to be the most hostile in terms of pointless suffering yet imagined.
The main instigator for the age of Pisces was undoubtedly Jesus of Nazareth, who if treated
like an historical figure, as opposed to the usual mythologizing of his story, particularly that
of his birth, can shed some light on the madness that ensured from the perversion of his
ideals, over the last 2000 years.
Jesus was a member of a sect known as the Essenes, who are most well known for their
‘lost scriptures’ more commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Essenes were
orthodox Jews who lived strictly acetic lives. Their leader was Jesus’ supposed younger
brother James. Jesus along with John the Baptist, were thought of by the Essenes as
messiahs who would lead the revolution against the Romans.

‘The Romans arrested Jesus and his brother James, who was actually the
character known as Barabbas, which is not a proper name, but a title
meaning ‘son of the father’. James was released; Jesus was crucified.
Afterwards, when the body of Jesus disappeared from his tomb, it gave rise
to the story that Jesus had risen from the dead. The Essenes believed that
this was a sign of the fulfilment of Jesus’ mission as a messiah. So
Christianity was born.’4

This was a very different Christianity to the one we know of today, as this new religion, still in its
infancy and prey to misinterpretations was totally turned on its head with the coming of Paul, in
approximately 60CE, who became the main preacher of a new form of Christianity. This version had
it that Jesus was the Son of God and that he had died on the cross as a scapegoat for the sins of

4 Flem-Ath, Rand, ‘What The Templar Found’.

3
humankind. It was also his idea that anyone could become free of original sin by accepting Jesus as
the Son of God and enter the kingdom of heaven. Through both historical and political chance, it is
this version, of Christianity, that has come down to us.
This was a direct consequence of our original act of self-deception. Our mistaken feeling of guilt was
allowed to build up throughout the centuries. The real tragedy of this escalating sense of faulty logic
in regards to our emotions is that as we evolved we came to associate all sensuality as sinful. By
inventing sin it would not be possible to live healthily in harmony with our physical nature. By the
time of Christ it had become unbearable. That is why at this stage it was an absolute necessity for
humanity to somehow offload this feeling. The new astrological age was the perfect opportunity and
Christ, as its contemporary became the new figure of focus.
So Jesus was we may conclude a revolutionary who died for his beliefs, which after his death
became used as the basis of a new religion for the means of prolonging our delusion. By this point
we had matured as a species and our conception of god followed suite. This was no longer a mere
Sun worshipping cult, this god through the centuries of development and the seeming grounding to
reality with the historical figure of Jesus, had taken on a life all its own and fuelled our collective
delusion for a further two centuries.

5. THE AGE OF PISCES

The concept of the Christian god was nothing more than a metaphor for the age of Pisces.
The god, which has posed a greater threat to human kind, than any other version, in history.
Throughout the Christian era and the bible for that matter are found countless references to
fish. The most striking image that comes to mind is that of Jesus feeding the thousands.

‘Pisces, meaning fish, is a water sign. There is much water and fish zymology
in the bible stories about Jesus, such as Jesus calling fishermen as disciples,
being on the sea several times, calming the storm at sea, helping the
disciples catch fish, performing miracles in feeding people with fish, walking
on water, his baptism in water, and his talk with Nicodemus about being
born again by ‘water and spirit’5

Although I do not see any real meaning in astrology, it is still useful to look at links, which
astrologers make, in regards to Jesus’ relation to Pisces, as we are talking in purely
metaphorical terms.

‘Jesus is considered a higher spiritual being, an avatar, by many astrologers.

He embodies the highest aspects of Pisces: universal love, compassion,
sacrifice, intuition, servant hood, martyrdom and spirituality. Jesus
represents the birth of non ego (Pisces) from ego (Ares).’6

So regardless of what Jesus may have been during his lifetime we see here that he is being
used, in astrological terms, in an entirely different manner, almost as a sign post for the age
of Pisces as the historical age of Christianity. This seems to be a deliberate reference to
signal this specific age of the zodiac. The idea of Jesus representing the birth of Pisces from
that of Ares is particularly telling, as Ares precedes Pisces in the zodiac. So not only is this
statement about human characteristics but it is also another way of representing the
beginning of a new astronomical age out of the old.

5 Montenegro, Marcia, ‘Christian Answers for the New Age’.

6 Adlib.

4
 6. HOW GODS DIE
‘At the beginning of the Christian era, voices were heard off the coast of
Greece, out to sea, on the Mediterranean, wailing ‘Pan is dead, Great Pan is
dead!’7

This is an account from the Epic of Gilgamesh concerning Pan, the great pagan god. It is fitting that
such a statement was proclaimed, with the advent of Christianity, just as Nietzsche’s Zarathustra
proclaimed the death of the Christian god at the dawn of our own era.
Now that we are leaving the Christian, Piscean era and entering that of Aquarius, we see the rational
for the quest for the origins of god. Reliance on the Christian notion of god and of all gods is
something, which was relevant to the past, in particular the era of Pisces and so, we may surmise, is
now obsolete. Now that we have looked into how gods first came about we see that they have no
further relevance to the age of today.
Following on from this understanding of our past reliance on gods, we see the true motives of such
belief systems. They are designed for self-preservation not truth. They take away freedom and
replace it with security. It traps the believer within a limited sphere of solvable problems from which
he is to content himself on, like a well trained animal, who only realises a limited amount of needs
and desires which society can provide for- and no more. When early human kind first looked up to
the Sun in desperate need of a master and subordination it was an act that plunged us into eternal
irresponsibility. It freed us from the very real and daunting realisation that there are no eternal values
to cling to. In short, this way was far easier on the conscience, as freedom and the subsequent self-
realisation, are far more dangerous emotionally as they are a thought process based on objective
reality and not a fantasy, which acts as an excuse for laziness. Many people consider theories, such
as this, to be bleak, but the edge of nihilism can be forward thinking as well as positive. People do
not like to have their comfort in god or fate taken away as it leaves them with the realisation that
they are responsible for themselves and their actions.

‘Belief in another life is no different to admitting defeat in this one’8

If we come to terms with this we will make this new age of Aquarius one in which we shall
be freed from our Christian disgust with ourselves and from our need of a beyond, and will
be returned as it should have been in that first fateful hour of humankind, to freedom from
all illusions and self deceit and above all to have returned to a world now seen as ‘innocent’
rather than flawed by original guilt.

7. EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED

So now we have returned to that original terror that plagued humankind - freedom. The
thought that we are free, along with the implications freedom carries, is a scary proposition.
Many have gone as far as putting it that we are doomed to be free. What it all boils down to
really is a person’s view on that which we have already discussed. If a person believes in
god then the concept of true freedom will always be eluded. Under this belief code there is
no room for anything beyond the most basic of limits, as you are bound by his laws and to
any subsequent rewards or punishments.
So how does the modern, godless man live his life? How is it possible to live in a state of
existence with no guidelines and no eternal truths or values to cling to?

7 Duchend & Santilliana, ‘Hamlets Mill’.

8 Holzner, Jenny, ‘Truisms’.

5
‘There is absolutely nothing in the whole world to make men love their
fellow-men, there is no law in nature that man should love mankind, and
that if love did exist on earth, it was not because of any natural law but
solely because men believed in immortality. All natural law consisted of that
belief, and that if you were to destroy the belief in immortality in mankind,
not only love but every living force on which the continuation of all life in the
world depended, would dry up at once. Moreover, there would be nothing
immoral then, everything would be permitted, even cannibalism.’9

With this paragraph Dostoyevsky set forth the problem that would face every person
thereon who attempted to live without the self-deceit of religion. Through his character, Ivan
Karamazov, whom later writers called the first ‘existentialist’ he showed that there was no
true path in life with his famous phrase ‘everything is permitted’.
So we may surmise that if you do not believe in god then you cannot be bound by moral
codes. Whether they are seen as the will of god or the state is irrelevant, those codes are
based on false foundations and cannot be trusted or taken for granted. Not only that but
good and evil, all judgements of right and wrong also become irrelevant. In all honesty the
only ‘good’ that can exist is that which is beneficial to the individual and the only ‘evil’ that
which harms him. If there is no god then indeed ‘everything is permitted’ and the only thing,
which can define us is our personal preferences. Whether we realise it or not, we all have
total freedom, and inevitably with freedom comes that dreaded fear of the unknown.
So supposing we have come to terms with all this so far, we are still floating in the void so to
speak, we still have no grounding. What kind of values, if any, could possibly exist if we are
being honest?

‘For every individual, who does not believe in god or his own immortality, the
moral laws of nature must at once be changed into the exact opposite of the
former religious laws, and self-interest, even if it were to lead to crime, must
not only be permitted but even recognised as the necessary, the most
rational, and practically the most honourable motive for a man in his
position.’10

If we take this to be, as sure as our imperfections will allow, a system that is more in
keeping with reality a priori than relying on the flawed values judgements relied on in the
past, we must face head on with eyes unflinching, that premise of Dostoyevsky’s famous
phrase, which has proved to inspire so much debate ever since. Dostoyevsky’s ‘everything
is permitted’ is (if I am permitted to suggest so!) an acceptance of reality; in the way I have
just proposed we should attempt to live it.
It should not be misinterpreted as an excuse for the selfish to justify their means.
It is a way of showing that regardless of our individual or collective desires; others will
always work contrary to those desires. If I can be forgiven for using an extreme example, for
instance the proposition ‘racial genocide is permitted’ in the Dostoyevskian sense doesn’t
mean we should all Succumb to racial hatred? Nor does it mean to uphold that claim, or to
suggest that it is socially permitted. We must here separate that which is permitted by the
state, from that which is permitted in nature.
That, which is permitted by the state can only be a transitory guide and prey to constant
fluctuations of social and economic opinion, which we can follow only with caution, whereas
if we talk of that which is permitted, in nature, we are considering another way of saying,
everything which can physically occur, anything which is possible in reality must be

9 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, ‘The Brothers Karamazov’

10 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, ‘The Brothers Karamazov’

6
accepted. But this is not an end in itself as not only must everything be accepted but it must
also be dealt with. This is not; I stress again, a nihilistic acceptance of atrocities but a
responsibility of both acceptance and action. It is not a defeatist attitude, it merely points out
the fact that there will always be people with a counter attitude and opinion and there is
nothing we can do to change that. We can act upon it, we can stand opposed and we can
attempt to reason with it. But to say, they are not permitted in the greater sense of things is
not in keeping with the logical indifference of the universe.
Any form of action in this sense then is permitted, as Wittgenstein stated, ‘if a thing can
occur in a state of affairs’. It is Nietzsche’s will to power manifest. Opposing forces will
embody and employ the use of the will to power. In other words, in nature or reality it is
permitted to commit racial genocide just as it is equally permitted to oppose or prevent it.
‘Everything is permitted’ is not therefore an excuse to stoicism nor is it an afirmament of
atrocities. If we look at people and history in the context of ‘everything is permitted’ and an
actual and not theoretical genocide we will be able to expose the reality behind the
deceptive terms we have previously employed.
Classifying the Nazis as evil for committing the holocaust, for example, is stupid. It is almost
like absolving them of blame for their actions.
By attributing their 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!’ isn’t it better to admit straight
out that they were people like you and I, all susceptible to our emotions? Isn’t it more
responsible to admit that they didn’t act as they did from ‘evil’ but that they acted simply
because they wanted to and thought they had the means to get away with 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.
But people still like to deceive themselves, ‘They’re monsters’ is another phrase often
uttered in disgust. This serves no purpose other than self-gratification as by classifying them
as monsters we distance ourselves from them and from the very real truth that the same
impulsions exist in all of us. This way we are able to maintain our illusion of moral
superiority. We do not like to admit things such as this to ourselves as it leaves us, facing
the reality of the fact that given sufficient excuse, many of us would perhaps act no
differently placed in a similar situation. Either through a mere weakness of character in the
course of events instigated by others around us, or through genuine animosity.
Does this not mean therefore that the Nazis embody the will to power? That might is right
and that if everything is permitted nothing will stop it coming to pass but a persons own
shortcomings?
The Jews may have been the original proprietors of slave morality, but the Nazis did not
conquer it, on the contrary they inadvertently succumbed to it. Hitler himself that most
selective reader of Nietzsche, failed to see that he was acting out of nothing but resentment.
Resentment to the Jews for his past and also for his egoism. When a young artist,
struggling to survive, it was this resentment towards the well off Jews, which consumed him
and lead the way for his future roll. We all like to mythologize ourselves and in doing so turn
our oppressors into the ‘bad guys’. The man of resentment turns everything noble or better
off than himself into something evil and lacking in sufficient moral fibre.
So it seems that Hitler and through him the Nazis subscribed to a lower form of slave
morality than the Jews.
We can now see Hitler in a new light, as little more than a tragic Orwellian hero, the small
man embarking upon a doomed course of revolt.
Can we not now see where all this disastrousness has stemmed from? The Nazis hated the
Jews. Their self-deception allowed them to mythologize the Jews as ‘non-human’ in order to
achieve their ends. The post war western world hates the Nazis. Our self-deception allows

7
us to mythologize them as ‘non-human’ in order to achieve our ends. Isn’t it clear that we
have a lot of self-realising to overcome if we wish to avoid future disasters?

8. THE ETHICAL VOID

In this sense murder for instance is no more wrong, than helping the homeless is right.
There can no-longer be any judgement attached to either action, merely the preference for
one kind of act or the other, nothing more than the desire to act. This is the only way in
which things can make sense and the difference between the two types of action is no
bigger a decision than that of whether to have toast or cereal for breakfast. That murder is
not wrong or evil, in the way we have previously thought isn’t a way of saying, or an excuse
for committing it. It would be both foolish and highly naïve to suggest so. If the person is
caught they will deserve all they get, just not in the sense, which we have previously
thought. If the potential murderer, for instance has genuine reasons for committing the act
but shies away from it he will not, if being honest, be able to hide behind morality as an
excuse, he will not be able so say he failed to carry it out from his good nature, the only
genuine reason for failing to carry it out would be cowardice or fear of punishment.
In a sense if everyone is free, in this manner, the only thing, which infringes upon that sense
of freedom is the freedom of others, which is realistically always going to occur. This is why
people find the presence of others disturbing and can also be recognised as the main cause
of anxiety. No matter how small our contact with others we will always find our sense of
freedom compromised. We always act differently in the company of others, even around
people with whom we are totally comfortable with. We feel obliged to act differently, as we
are more consciously aware of our little eccentricities. So in this sense by our very freedom
we are not only responsible for ourselves but for everyone.

‘If it is true that existence is prior to essence, man is responsible for what he
is. It puts every man in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire
responsibility for his existence squarely upon his own shoulders. And, when
we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean only for his own
individuality, but that he is responsible for all men.’11
In fact it is that first fatal act of human kind that we here return to again. When our early
relatives failed to deal with the responsibilities of freedom and consciousness, they missed
the vital fact that we are still governed by instinct and regardless of our new realisations we
are still at the whim of nature. Not only did the invention of god cast out personal freedom it
also did away with our trust in ourselves. God’s law was followed and any law or feeling of
the self was ignored to the point of deception. As we had acquired this new sense the old
was assumed wrong or shameful. All other animals go about their various activities
unconcerned; it is only man, because of his submission to a fictional higher power, who has
grown to become ashamed of them.

‘At first glance, it would seem that because in the state of nature men have
no kind of moral relationships to each other, nor any recognised duties, they
would be neither good nor evil, and could have neither vices nor virtues;
unless we took those words in a physical sense and could call an individuals
‘vices’ those attributes that might be deleterious to his own survival and
‘virtues’ those that might be propitious for it, in which case we should call
most virtuous the person who least resisted the simple impulses of nature.’12

11 Sartre, Jean-Paul, ‘Existentialism & Humanism’

12 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, ‘Discourse on the Origin of Inequality’

8
So it would appear that even though we have evolved beyond the state of nature it is still
within nature that we should draw our inspiration for moral values, for instance a lion is not
called ‘evil’ if it kills a dear. It is our self-imposed isolation from nature, which forced us to
see things differently for ourselves. We are still governed deep down by the same impulses
of instinct and it is through this alone in which we can make any kind of moral standards,
whilst at the same time remaining true to the idea that eternal values cannot exist. When
humankind cut itself off from nature it was like cutting off its arm. We are a part of it whether
we realise it or not. The world we live in, apart from how we have affected it obviously, is the
way it is a priori, regardless of humankind or how we perceive it. It was not created for us,
the fact that the world is hostile to our temperament should be proof enough of this, we
have merely overran it, and in no other fashion than that of a parasite. This essay is not an
attempt to reconcile existentialism with naturalism, but more to point out that we never really
left the state of nature and that any indifference we have towards it is merely attributed to
the fact that the world is a hostile place for both man and animal. Would we suggest that
animals had ‘removed themselves from the state of nature’ because they had met with
chance inconvenience? We were born into it and for the most part do not question our place
in it. We assume that not only we are supposed to live within the constraints of nature, but
also the system, which we have created to alienate ourselves, and unless we come to
realisations, such as the issues we are dealing with here we remain constrained. People in
general think that they are doing well in life when they are doing what is familiar in social
situations. The only way to avoid this path of in-authenticity and make our lives our own is to
take over our existence with clarity of what we wish to accomplish and follow through with
passion and intensity.
Yet some claim that even beyond reliance, without god it is still possible for eternal values to
exist. The French professors of the 1880’s, for instance, strove for a new morality, whilst at
the same time wanting to get rid of the concept of god.

‘The existentialist is strongly opposed to secular moralism, which seeks to

suppress god at the least possible expense, something like this: - God is a
useless and costly hypothesis, so we will do without it. However, if we are to
have morality, a society and a law-abiding world, it is essential that certain
values should be taken seriously: they must have an a priori existence
ascribed to them. It must be considered obligatory a priori to be honest, not
to lie, not to beat ones wife, to bring up children and so forth; so we are
going to do a little work on this subject, which will enable us to show that
these values exist all the same, inscribed in an intelligible heaven’13

It was their view therefore that with radicalism we would discover that the same ideas of
truth, honesty and progress would still be as relevant and vital whether or not there was
such a thing as a god. I consider this approach to the problem however as an easy way of
avoiding a difficult, yet necessary situation. What is really meant is that if you cannot cope
with the reality of our situation then you may still fall back on old norms at your own
discretion. It will have no basis in objective reality, but it will be a safe way to continue life
without having to face up to complexities. Why is the idea of a priori moral truths any
different to god’s moral truth, when most of the time god is taken as a proposition a priori
any way? It is not possible to know god a posterior as there is no evidence for god in
empirical experience. This is no different than obeying morals through ‘faith’ if we still cannot
have rational reasons for why we follow these values. The only way for moral truths to exist

13 Sartre, Jean-Paul, ‘Existentialism & Humanism’

9
at all is from experience of the world, which we inhabit, and which can apply if not
judgements then at least distinctions of preference.
The problem here lies in the fact that all previous attempts have been based on false
premises. As we saw earlier, with humankinds first conscious thought it betrayed itself and
has been in an intellectual and spiritual downward spiral ever since. To move forward we
must see ourselves afresh, in a more honest and rational light. We must risk our peace of
mind to attain self-knowledge in order to escape from the illusions we have held true
concerning ourselves and our actions, which we have hidden behind for centuries.
Unfortunately we as individuals are far too immersed in Christianity and its dogmatic
convictions. We cannot help but feel the negative emotions, which it has battered into our
consciousness over the centuries. Even people such as us who have cast out the absurdity
of god cannot help but exclaim his name in a moment of agitation. We cannot help feel the
pity which religion has inducted into us.

9. ACTION AND RESPONSIBILITY

Let me at this point take the chance to defend myself from any implications that this way
forward is merely an excuse for greed and self-interest.
We have previously looked upon people who are self interested, in the light of some one
who has committed a crime to the rest of the supposed ‘just’. Comments such as, ‘he’s only
thinking of himself’, may be heard. On the other hand there is the self-sacrificing person of
supposed high morality, and yet in most cases the only real motive is a different form of self-
interest. Which is the more honest of these two forms of self-interest? That which freely
admits it and possibly does some good for others merely as a by-product or that which
struts in public about its noble actions, with expectations of rewards? We have always
drawn a thin line between heroes and fools but perhaps we should draw them between
heroes and the vain.
If a Christian or other believer of ‘faith’ acts out of kindness it were only really an act to gain
favour with their ‘lord’, however if an existentialist performs a similar act, wouldn’t it be out a
more genuine concern? What other motive could such a person have? So surely what was
previously considered self-interest is merely genuine interest including for others, as
opposed to a continual obsession with appearing to be as helpful as possible?

‘One becomes moral – not because one is moral. Submission to morality can
be slavish or vain or selfish or resigned or obtusely enthusiastic or
thoughtless or an act of desperation, like submission to a prince: in itself it
is nothing moral.’14

The age-old saying ‘know thyself’ is therefore something that is still important and perhaps
still central to a doctrine of the future. Being honest before your-self and before others is still
not something, which is encouraged socially. Albert Camus has shown brilliantly how the
honest man, having no insecurities in himself, and not being afraid to show it, is by his very
nature an outsider and as a consequence of his temperament places himself completely on
the outside of society.

‘In our society any man who doesn’t cry at his mothers funeral is liable to be
condemned to death.’ The hero is condemned because he doesn’t play the
game. In this sense he is an outsider to the society in which he lives,

14 Nietzsche, Friedrich, ‘The Dawn’

10
wandering on the fringe, on the outskirts of life, solitary and sensual. He
refuses to lie. Lying is not only saying what isn’t true. It is also, in fact
especially, saying more than is true and, in the case of the human heart,
saying more than one feels. We all do it, every day, to make life simpler. But
contrary to appearances, he doesn’t want to make life simpler. He says what
he is, he refuses to hide his feelings and society immediately feels
threatened. So he is not a reject, but a poor and naked man, in love with a
sun, which leaves no shadows. Far from lacking all sensibility, he is driven by
a tenacious and therefore profound passion, the passion for an absolute and
for truth. This truth is as yet a negative one, a truth born of living and
feeling, but without which no triumph over the self or over the world will
ever be possible.’15

So the task set before us is perhaps too daunting. The things proposed here are not exactly
new ideas, they have been around a good hundred years or so and yet humankind cannot
dig itself out of this pit, and for all its technological achievements perhaps it doesn’t want to.
It is therefore up to individuals to lead the way not in the form of a new religion, but to
confront these issues in every day life.
In many ways we will be creating a new culture, in which we shall begin history again, this
time avoiding the self-deceptive and negating paths previously followed. Unfortunately we,
at present, are far too immersed in Christianity and its convictions. We cannot help the
emotions and feelings it has battered into us over the centuries. Our quest, therefore, is to
pave the way for the future and for a more honest, open minded and less insecure age.
There will be no room in this age, for pettiness or illusions. We will all be self serving but
honest about it and therefore all serving a common cause, without being forced to fit into a
fixed and stagnated, alienating way of existence. This age will be based primarily on
freedom and our coming to terms with it in a responsible manner. This freedom, we must
realise is to do and think whatever and however we wish. However no forms of religion will
be acceptable or tolerated. This is not a contradiction as religion, by its very nature, is the
opposite of freedom of thought.
Everything that has gone before must be washed away, but that doesn’t mean that we are
not still influenced by the few rare, genuine actions and moments of our history. Nor does it
mean that we have failed to learn from it. What it means is that we are returning to that first
vital moment and accepting the responsibility to make of ourselves what we wish to be and
not what we are expected to be. We must accept this highest of responsibilities and follow
through with the passion and intensity that our potential would expect.

10. HUME’S LAW

It was David Hume who put forth the proposition that it is impossible to reach any form of
conclusion about what ought to be done from an assumption, which merely states what is at
present the case:

‘In every system of morality which I have hitherto met with, I have always
remarked, that the author proceeds for sometime in the ordinary way of
reasoning… when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the
usual copulations of propositions, ‘is’ and ‘is not’, I meet with no proposition
that is not connected with an ‘ought’ or an ‘ought not’. This change is
imperceptible but is, however, of the last consequence.’16

15 Camus, Albert, ‘The Outsider’

16 Hume, David, ‘Treatise On Human Nature’.

11
Hume’s main point being that an arguments conclusion cannot contain anything not in its
original assumption. Otherwise we are dealing with nothing but a fallacy.
There are so many people these days who have cast off the illusion of god and yet there he
remains. Most people today, including most atheists comically enough, still base their
behaviour on Judaeo-Christian ethics! We are so immersed in Christianity that even our
most rational mindedness struggles to cast of its effects.
How can any man, in all his limitedness, his senses being hardly adequate for the job, form
convictions on such subjects as lofty as on the supposed ‘above and below’? Or for that
matter on any point concerning ‘our lord’? Yet when dealing with this volatile subject people
always tend to fall for ‘Humes law’ as it has become known. Here Nietzsche is correct in the
observation that ‘convictions are bigger enemies of truth than lies’ if I can be forgiven for
quoting him yet again.

We can only act on the knowledge we can attain a posteriori and make the most likely
decisions with that knowledge as the ancient Greek Stoics and Eclectic schools would have
had it.
It has always perplexed me that if this is the kind of person god wants and it is this kind of
god, which people imagine exist, why would anybody want anything to do with such a deity?
These value judgements are outdated yet they are relevant here: if god is the supposed
‘just’ or ‘good’ to the devils ‘wicked’ or ‘evil’, what does that show us about such terms? That
a good person is someone who is or demands subservience and blind thoughtlessness? If
that is our definition of ‘the good’ it is about time we rethought our alliance to it. If anyone
were to think back to the times in their life where they had prayed or asked for gods help,
they would think back to their childhood. In other words, to when they were at their weakest
or when they could see no other rational way out of trouble. After all, why take the
responsibility to deal with a no win situation when you can count on a higher power to bail
you out? People will deceive themselves to any extent to get off the hook. To hell with god
the rest of the time! But when you are desperate you’ll resort to him!

Isn’t this the case with all who ‘find god’?

11. THE QUEST FOR THE OVERMAN

History is awash with figures who have attempted to live beyond morality and anyone today
attempting such a task would be following in a long line of unmutuals. 19th century literature,
inot alone but in particular, is populated by Overman types. Those who would bypass social
and religious norms in a grand gesture of self-overcoming.
The central figure in Dostoyevsky’s masterpiece ‘Crime & Punishment’ embraces the idea of
the Overman. The idea that a person can, through an act of crime, place himself outside of
and above society. That certain people through the possession of a unique revolutionary
idea have a right within themselves to commit crime. ‘Great men are not afraid to be
criminals, great men smash laws’ as he says himself. This is what separates Raskolnikov
from ever other killer in fiction. He kills not out of resentment, not for personal gain but for
society and for the future.
Raskolnikov although fictitious was a perfect portrait of what was to come. In many ways
Raskolnikov is the closest thing to a socialist Overman or a Nietzschean/Marxist. So do the
qualities inherent in such a person constitute the high spirits of the Overman?
In the end Raskolnikov fails dismally to cope with the consequences of his actions. His
emotional state therefore is still that of the ordinary Russian and not qualities that the self-

12
overcoming would have. In the end he falls back onto Christian morality to save his
conscience, which could not cope with the strain. Raskolnikov’s idol and hero was none
other than Napoleon. The person he wanted to be must surly have the qualities we seek.
Napoleon went a stage further than Raskolnikov; he was the self-made definition of the law.
As Dostoyevsky’s character says ‘Napoleon wouldn’t have paused to get what he needed.’
The ability to ‘wade through blood’ in the pursuit of a new or juster form of society and
whether the ethical justification for such acts has real validity has long been debated. Yet
history always has its ways of setting things in motion, whether they are peaceful and
gradual or decisively swift.
1860’s Russia was an era of great social upheaval where Romanticism gave birth to the
Nihilist movement. It was one hundred years later, in the West where Romanticism gave its
last stand. The purest form of revolt is expressed in the cult sixties TV series ‘The Prisoner’,
through Patrick McGoohan’s character, the unnamed ‘No.6’.Here we explore the hostility
that an individual can face from supposed ‘model citizens’ for being an unmutual when
really the person is merely resisting external forces to change his character. Many saw the
prisoner T.V. series merely in terms as a cold war propaganda show against the values
upheld by the Soviet Union. There are themes that run through the Prisoner series that form
parallels with the work of Albert Camus, particularly in the works ‘The Outsider’ and ‘The
Rebel’, which deals with the history of revolt. It is here expressed that through the very act
of refusing to compromise our ideals we can become an unmutual and therefore an out cast
from society. The prisoner shows great resolve in both personal dignity and honour. He is
also both a man of action and thought. Does this make him an ideal figure representing the
Overman? Although the prisoner shows great strength of character and is not broken
through any means, his ethics are still based on the old. Although he displays the resolve
that Raskolnikov lacked, he is not as self over coming as Raskolnikov is conceptually.
Therefore both characters show us one half of the traits inherent in the Overman. On the
one hand we have the theory while the other has the strength of will to see it through.

Charles Manson has been associated with many theories. A cold and calculated killer by
principle. It is this principle upon which he stands that separates the Manson case from all
others. The will to see through the killing of Hollywood’s beautiful, that which he perceived
as the ugliest of all. Not only that but the strength of character to convince others not only
that these people deserved to die but also to carry out his bidding. Is this not the beginning
of the career of a budding Napoleon? Whatever people say of Manson’s genius the fact still
remains that he was just as insane as he was clever. This coupled with the all too obvious
shortcoming that his actions were inspired by nothing but resentment, to use the man’s own
words: ‘do you think you can break me? You’ll never break me. I was broken a long time
ago.’
The rational mindedness of the Overman could never be further away.

If ever there were an Overman it is surly inherent in that original of terrorists? Whom
depending on people’s perspective the most successful or dismal failure of a revolutionary
that ever lived?
The self-sacrifice and self-negation that Jesus of Nazareth has shown was a supreme
victory over his enemies.
Religion does him a great injustice in the delusion that he was the Son of God. If he was the
Son of God then whatever he went through, whatever he suffered for others was easy. It
was no great achievement what so ever. Surely it would have been a far greater
achievement and far more inspiring to the rest of us if he were a normal man? The strength
of will required to accept his suffering and not bear his adversaries the slightest resentment.
This is different to the temperament of every one of his followers since. His suffering wasn’t

13
about looking morally superior it was not, what it became for everyone else a slave morality.
It was born of the most genuine of passions the ever existed.

12. RATIONAL EGOISM

As Socrates stated, what a person wants and what a person wills are two entirely different
things. If an individual were to break the law, out of sporadic impulse they would be
contemptible. If however they broke the law through willing it, if it was a necessary action,
they would be contemptible for not following through.
Crime against individuals is of a different order to crime against the state. The first is that
already defined as contemptible whereas the second is a legitimate and necessary form of
social expression. A statement of intent directed towards the suppressive capitalist system,
which we rely on through the concept of total administration.
These are the reasons why people like the prisoner and Mersault from ‘The Outsider’ are
considered criminals. It is the system which we live in that is the enemy of any free spirit,
that which parades as the good, that which we do not question, as long as it supplies and
maintains our lifestyles at the expense of others. If it cannot be brought down it can at least
be dismantled. Piece by piece.

‘Crime is a protest against the unnatural structure of society- from that it

follows that if society is properly organised, all crimes will instantly
disappear, since there will be nothing to protest against, and everybody will
immediately become law abiding’17

This is the Socialist view, and is perhaps a simplification of a truism. What is assumed as
the source of all crime does not account for environment nor does it account for greed.
There will always be crime of some fashion. If society were correctly structured, which will
never happen, that will only prevent a percentage of crimes committed. Not all crime is
about social protest. Some is misdirected while some is unintentional. Plus the added
problem that if society could be structured to provide for everybody’s needs, many would
become either complacent or rebellious to the easy way of life with which they had come to
rely on. By our very nature we are never satisfied. We are always striving in vain, striving for
the Overman.

‘All human behaviour is motivated by the desire to maximise personal

pleasure and to avoid pain. Since human motivation is thus both constant
and universal, differences in the behaviour of people can be explained only
by the different ways in which their socioeconomic environment leads them
to act in pursuit of their self-interest. Crime and courage, avarice and
charity, all emanate from the same egoistical impulse. Religious and
philosophical idealist concepts of free will and morality therefore can neither
explain nor alter human action. ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ become relative terms, their
use based
On whether people perceive the actions of others as beneficial or harmful to
them; the conflict between good and evil simply reflects the clash of interests
between competing individuals or social groups. We should resolve such
conflicts by maximizing the pleasure of the largest number of people, since
that will bring the greatest benefit to society.’18

17 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, ’Crime & Punishment’.

18 Cherneshevsky, Nikolai, ‘The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality’.

14
There are many variants on this theme of utilitarianism, this one follows however, that
instead of having to choose between the self-deception of eternal values and the Nihilism of
a great ethical void, we will all become ‘rational egoists’.

These terms, good and evil however weak their foundations have proven to be, still hold
considerable weight in the world we live in. All that has been sacrificed for the sake of good
and evil! But these terms do not really mean what we generally think they do. If a person is
judged to be good we think of them as a model citizen, but this is not always the case.
People with genuine intentions for instance may be insecure and back away from
recognition even to the point of denial. People who are too honest and ‘good willed’ for their
own good will fail to function in any such society, as it requires a certain amount of
submission. Albert Camus has shown how society really treats such a person, incapable of
deceit, or who are totally fearlessly open about their thoughts and emotions. They are
usually turned into outcasts or portrayed as monsters for not playing along. So in this sense
the weak minded and the ignorant will always be seen as ‘the good guys’ in the eyes of
society as they are the ones who do not question it.

13. LIFE BEYOND THE VOID

So is it possible to live without attachment to such foundationless values? In the 1980’s, for
instance Bernard Williams attempted a very similar feat to what concerns us here, in an
attempt to get to grips with what he labelled ‘the morality system’, and to find out once and
for all the answer to the question: are we better off without morality?

‘Morality, on this conception, is essentially a system of law-like obligations.

To do right is to recognise what morality requires and to do it, simply
because it is what morality requires.’ 19

To follow moral values blindly as given by the state is just as contemptible as if we were still
operating under divine law. In other words it is nothing more than a blind sense of duty
towards the state.
This calls up two different solutions to the problem. The first, which is taken from Kant, is
that our ethics are based solely on will and principles, the second, derived from Aristotle,
and is more to do with ‘dispositions of character’. In other words the first approach is
concerned with justice and rights, which are established through an earthly given law. As his
famous Categorical Imperative stated: ‘Act only on that maxim which you can at the same
time will to become a universal law.’
The second approach is more concerned about caring and the recognition of
responsibilities. This method is therefore focused further toward people as individuals within
real everyday relationships, as opposed to a general rule directed at the whole of society,
grounded in rationally arrived at propositions.
So it would seem then that our real aim here then is to find a way to establish, once and for
all, whether there is an objective or a subjective existence to moral principles.
Objective principles are extrinsic and are only followed through ulterior guidance, whereas
subjective principles are intrinsic and are governed by our feelings. It is here that the whole
argument hinges upon. The objective case would state that moral values exist separately
from human beings and regardless of god or the state are ‘somehow’ built into the structure
of the universe, this is what modern secularism was based upon as morality was then still

19 Williams, Bernard, ‘Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy’.

15
something that we could discover in a similar fashion to how we discover the laws of
physics.
On the other hand the subjective argument says that moral values only exist in our heads
(whether of our own making or from influences in upbringing). This explains why values vary
across various societies and religions, and shows that they only act as a useful form of self-
deceit. There are precious little examples in history of anything but this form of deception.
There is perhaps one example; a short lived one at that, which we can look to.

16