THE UNMUTUAL BOOK 4: CULT OF THE UNMUTUAL

1. ‘THE GOOD LIFE’ OR HOW PEOPLE HAVE LIVED HITHERTO

All these people who live the supposed ‘good life’. Why do so many of them aim to do
nothing at all as soon as and for as long as possible? Is it really that difficult for them to
understand, as Dostoyevsky would have it, that someone may wish contrary to that which is
supposedly best for them? It is only here that true free will can prevail; it is only this
approach that can give us the most direct way to experience new levels of intensity.
There is little more contemptible than mindless cheerfulness. Happiness then is merely
another term for complacency. People who are happy never achieve a thing. What reason
would they have to bother? They are too content in their lives, which are supplied to them
by the state through the concept of total administration. But yet when people supposedly
wish well for us this were all that they seem to wish. Why not its antithesis, the only real life
affirming state of existence? 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 I remain true to what I am 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 already
mentioned ‘self-decided, self-respecters’ want us to be happy? More closely they want us to
act in a way that will make them happy. The concept of everything in its antithesis then
explains why those in our age with the appearance of barbarians are the least barbarous.
While those who wear suits are…
It seems that everything here proposed is for the betterment of the species to escape that
which has previously been thought of as for our own good. It almost seems that everything
that has previously been upheld was so for opposite reasoning and resulted in the antithesis
of our ‘best interests’. Can our task really be as simple as to reverse everything that has
been revered hitherto? Yet history is it seems, according to Hegel, is on our side. Hegel
argued that the historic process was one of constant strife between ideas. Each thesis then
inevitably created its antithesis. When opposites become as one the two merge into a
synthesis, only inevitably to create the next opposite into infinitude. Yet morality exists today
as it seemingly always has. The evolution of slave morality into backward morality. In other
words the discovery that everything we think we hold dear being inherently contradictory
and everything we really value only really existing in its antithesis. For starters: why is there
such a drastic margin between what people think they uphold and that which they uphold in
reality? In the story of Robin Hood for instance, we cheer on our supposed hero despite the
odds he faces and yet paradoxically in reality we uphold the nemesis, the equivalent of the
sheriff, the businessman. In the real world the hero is nothing more than a fool and what is
held be that which we should aspire to is the man of exploitation and greed. This is more
than mere Orwellian double think. Does allowing us the supposed liberty of cheering the
unmutual on screen drain us of our need for integrity and heroism in real life? Are the
producers perhaps suggesting revolt or are they laughing at us, knowing fully well that we
lack the resolve to carry through our convictions into real life?
Deviants seem to express some form of integrity or individuality yet most merely comform
to different stereotypes or value systems than the norm, to different cultural systems or
ideas than are current at the time. When people talk of rebellion they merely mistake that
which a person owes alliance to. It is not the disobeyal of rules, which is, disliked as such,
more the lack of fear for them. These Part time napoleons!!! It seems it is okay to slander
big business, as long as we go back to work the next day and perpetuate its existence! Of

1
course if we all went to work for the pleasure of it the only person out of a job would have
been Marx, and yet we all live out the myth of Sissyphus on a 9-5 basis. As Albert Camus
has pointed out Sissyphus, the great prankster who defied the Greek gods, the
establishment of the age, has stood for Marxism just as much as Oedipus has for Freud.
The fact remains through: was Sissyphus an unmutual? Well in the end he hauled his rock
all the same!
It is our task herein to understand how and why we come to uphold certain convictions,
such as these above all possible others. Why we come to align our selves with one
subjectivity over another, and why we are so obsessed with the delusion that these things
are, for us or all, ‘the truth’.

2. THE HISTORY OF TRUTH

But unfortunately these are the ways in which most of the world has seen fit to view itself.
These flawed spectacles of the soul cast their eyes upon all ethics, and every misconceived
view of life. It seems that every area of human understanding is based upon rotten fantasy.
For instance, 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. There is
no finger pointing here, we all suffer from this mental defect. 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. For example: The Sphinx is ten
thousand years older than Egyptologists previously thought. So what! It only seems
fantastic because we got it wrong! It was always the way it was a priori whether we knew it
or not! It is only when theories are postulated with lack of insight that any alternative comes
to be seen as ‘impossible’. As Wittgenstein sums up: ‘in logic nothing is accidental: if a thing
can occur in a state of affairs, the possibility of the state of affairs must be written into the
thing itself.’1 Things only seem impossible because you are seeing the effects of a cause
which is yet to be determined. 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.
But if our objective is not truth but merely its veil of Maya, the phenomena and not the thing
in itself, then we may come to understand how we have not turned and become backward
but skewered sideways in an awkward manner so as not to be even able to spot our
previous mistakes. Have we till now understood what the word truth even means? There are
two different and quite opposing conceptions of truth. That which ‘is’, a priori (ontologically)
the way things are in themselves and altogether indifferent to our perceptions. The second
is that which ‘appears’ to be, whether at present or otherwise. Here is where we can see
what is really upheld and what the real purpose of truth is. The only way a real empiric
notion of truth can be of any use is through the previously held conviction in mans
accountability to god. The idea that whatever it is that transpires, contrary to what appears
to be, is watched over or recorded in nature by some eternal entity. In this way empiric truth
would still be apparent, as regardless of our misconceptions there is a force out there that
‘knows all’ or knows the concrete ontology of the event.
Without this however whatever an event in a state of affairs ‘appears to be’ becomes upheld
as truth. That which ‘is’ cannot hold any further relevance if it can never become known.
Truth is now that which ‘is most likely’, as the ancient Greek eclectic schools would have

1 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, ‘Tractatus Logico Philosophicus’.

2
had it, and that which is helpful to those who put it across as such. In this way falsehood a
priori, becomes truth. In that it is what everyone has come to accept as ’fact’.
Eternal truth therefore is only something outside of and indifferent to humankind. States of
affairs as they occurred which we shall never have knowledge of and which serve no
practical or social need. This form of primordial truth, that which ‘is’, regardless of how we
consider the world, is of a different nature to the day to day ‘deception truths’ we employ to
be able to live in comfort. Oedipus has shown how anyone who follows empiric truth
through will not be the better for it. It is a monstrosity which nature commands quite apart
from man. Who will follow this kind of primordial truth regardless of the cost? Is truth really
worth it? The majority of these people who blag on about upholding truth are completely
indifferent to this form of primordial truth. It is merely the dogma of truths worthiness that
they are concerned with!
Falsehood then becomes an anti-solipsist experimentation with reality. What is the real
value behind states of affairs as they are a priori, in themselves, as opposed to what they
are believed to be? Our governments have played with this non-empiric ‘reality experiment’
for years. Shaping events and history as they see fit. How absurd the notion of an absolute
truth is! We humans. Always convinced a priori that truth is good, truth is this, truth is that.
Why are we so convinced 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 what has always benefited us the most!
Ontological truth then has no place in human activity. The only form of truth that can hold
any value to us is solipsistic truth, meaning that which appears to the individual concerned
‘to be the case’. If things are ‘other’ in an ontological sense it can have no bearing on our
lives. Ontological falsehood then is merely a solipsistic experimentation with reality. What an
individual or usually that which a group of individuals pass off as ‘the case’ becomes
regarded as something regarded as ‘the truth’. The meaning of the word truth then is really
whatever fiction is imposed on the highest amount of people. The ancient Greek Sophists
understood this. They placed value on the ability to orate convincingly above being faithful
to ontological truth. When Socrates or Aristophanes denounced this method of practice they
were merely unable to cope with the Post-modernist implications in the Sophists conduct.
Post-modernism embraced temporal and subjective truths. In a way we have become an
age of Sophists, as politicians are obliged to be Sophists with their oratory skills. The
mistake is with their distracters in assuming that ontological truth is that which is sort, or that
it has any value or bearing on human activity. In many cases then it is merely a semantic
misunderstanding that is at issue. Our pre-conceived ideas as to what words like ‘truth,
good, evil, virtue’ etc mean has blinded us to accept a false impression of the world as
rational and controlled by the dictionary.
The suggestion that all criminals are artists, who merely fail to find other forms of
expression, follows this line of thought. We play with truth and what it can be to a lesser
extent all the time. What else are we doing when we tell stories and exaggerate and
mythologize events? To tell all out lies is merely to take this idea to the next level. To see
how far the boundaries of ‘truth’ can go. The artist then is the architect of tomorrow, and in
a world devoid of eternal values it is the artist who is not only the creator of new values but
of what our very conception of truth can be.
If something is scientifically disproved and ontological truth seemingly breaks in, does this
really discredit the way things were previously seen to be?? It is through culture that we
understand the world not through ontological reality, and it is artists and poets who have
defined culture and therefore how we view the world and all ethical systems. The artist then
as we have previously understood him is a mistake. The creator of the plastic arts is only
the first step in the life of the true artist. A canvas, a brush, a lump of clay. These things are
but crude focal points for the artist’s creativity. But just as it is possible to sing without the

3
focal point of the microphone, it is possible for the artist to create using nothing but his
mind. Ultimate creativity is not dependent on material sculpting. It sculpts upon the very
fabric of reality and has epoch defining potential. It realises itself fully in the manner in which
we conduct ourselves throughout life. Many great artists such as Byron, Sade, prove this
point through their lives being of equal or indeed more interest than their plastic works.
Through the very act of living we are unconsciously acting as artists. We all create in
different ways every day. Yet most of these acts of creation go unnoticed or at least
unrealised in their potential. In this sense then each individual contributes to the future
through creating their own truths and values to a certain extent. The great artists are merely
the ones who more fully realise and develop their powers and as such have a more
devastating effect on preceding eras.
When we speak we create. Language is ill fitted to represent the world of our minds or the
world in itself directly. The Sophists understood that it is not only speech in itself, which
performs the creative process, but mainly that which we speak about. When we speak we
set forth a certain worldview, regardless of how truly it represents the world in itself. In this
way, that which we speak of takes on a life of its own and has the potential to shape human
reality. We are all social animals even down to the most underground man like among us.
Therefore we understand things and events in the world through the communication of
them, not through direct experience. So how we understand the world around us is directly
proportional to our social surroundings. This is why it is important for artists to travel to be
able to understand different ways of life in order to pave new ones. Schopenhauer’s
philosophy would have been impossible without Middle Eastern thought. However much
Kant philosophised about the world his understanding of it was limited as he only ever saw
it in books.
All metaphysics cast aside it is only the human understanding and human reality that can be
of any use to us. Each age then is defined by how its people create their truths and values
about the world. Each age is generally defined by a relative few whose views take on
meaning for the many and by an even smaller percentage of supreme artists who recognise
the true extent of their creativity. The others have influence over a generation or perhaps a
century but the supreme artists set the course of history rolling for eons. All values are
temporary and culturally based. They are created by these artists who use the fabric of
human reality as their canvas. Understanding the relative and transitory nature of all values
and truths certain artists have been able to define world eras in this way through their work.
It is to these unmutuals who are anything but analogous with their times to whom we look
for it is their task, as artists to create new values for future eras.

“Unity in art appears at the limit of transformation which the artist imposes
on reality. The artist imposes by his language a redistribution of elements
derived from reality and gives the recreated universe its unity and its
boundaries. It attempts, in the work of every rebel, and succeeds in the case
of a few geniuses, to impose its laws on the world “poets”, said Shelley, “are
the un acknowledged legislators of the world.” 2

Any and all ages are defined by their prevailing moralities. Each have their own sets of
values to which they look to uphold themselves. We have discovered that these moral
systems are generally institutions used to keep the major populace both in trust and in line,
never forgetting to proclaim aloud a “you must act thus!” throughout each era. Yet when we
have realised that these value systems are not rooted in the world as such but created by
ourselves, for and against ourselves, we can attempt to live beyond them or attempt to

2 Camus, Albert, ‘The Rebel.’

4
create new values of our own. Nihilism was the attempt to live ‘beyond all values’ and in a
way merely pointed to the fact that this is not for all. Select artists and thinkers may be able
to cope within the midst of the void but the majority have always needed their comforts. The
only alternative to living neither by deception nor in futile emptiness is to create new values
for new ages. To do this it is perhaps necessary to understand how previous age’s artist
creators and in turn their peoples came to uphold certain of all possible values. We have
recognised now the real role which ‘truth’ has played in our history and that it has always
been subject to the artistic license of those who hold the keys to forge the future. History is
full of such figures that through their work define the world in which they inhabit. History has
thrown up numerous artists of this calibre, who create new ways, new values and new
codes of existence. Perhaps more so than political figures and revolutions that have torn
and reshaped eras, it is these cultural figures that have defined the path of history. They are
the ones who ultimately shape and give birth to the truths and values that the following eras
adhere to. The lesser of these artists will perhaps through their art define a generation. The
20th century is full of such figures that have defined a code of practice for their own or a
preceding generation, whether through music, the media, poetry or literature. Yet the 20th
and 21st centuries, with their characteristic short attention spans have not produced a
cultural figure, which has definitively defined an age beyond its own life span. The very
highest form of artist then, are the ones who have managed to define whole epochs of
history.

The first of these figures is Homer, in the pre-classical age of Greece. Homer was the
original ‘artist as creator’ and his Iliad and Odyssey will always have their power regardless
of the argument about 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. A
morality that seems rather dubious today (and which is played down in contemporary
adoptions), yet this is how every era acquires its truths and values. Today we understand
the Iliad and the Odyssey as books to be read. This is a completely alien approach to their
original means of transmission, which was purely by aural means. The Homeric bards of the
time between the Trojan War and historic Greece created the whole structure of myth that
would latter come to define human reality. The Greek world is interesting in the morality that
it professes. All of Greek mythology can be read as a none apologetic glorification of
murderers and rapists. If a Greek god or hero (the difference between the two being far less
than any other mythology) wanted something, a desire for a girl or power, he took it. Nothing
would sate the orgiastic heights achievable through being at one with all the senses.
Through his poems Homer defined what it was that gave the Greeks their identity. Not just a
common language, with these poems Homer created what was to become the morality of
the Hellenic world. That which was considered ‘true’ and that which was deemed of value by
any Greek were set in stone by Homer. It was the bar by which citizens from classical
Athens to Alexander, on his deathbed in Babylon, measured their ‘Greek ness’.
Saint Paul is perhaps the second truly great creator artist in this vein. The figure who
perhaps more than any, has influenced the evolution of history through the creation of moral
truths and values. In many ways it was St. Paul and not Jesus who was the genius (and
artistic genius at that) behind what eventually became Christianity. Jesus was a member of
an ascetic group known as the Essenes, along with Peter and James. St. Paul was against
the teachings of the Essenes, yet after the death of Jesus he managed to perform a coup
infiltrating the group, usurping its leadership and having Jesus’ followers put to death. St.
Paul never actually even met Jesus during his lifetime. The accounts we have of Jesus are
mainly from when St. Paul met him in visions, either after his death or during his
resurrection. St. Paul used his position to over throw what was previously upheld by the
Essenes and with time all the world. The whole notion that Jesus was the son of god and

5
that he died for our sins, and that through belief in him we may be eternally saved, all these
were the ideas of St. Paul and had nothing to do with what Jesus or his fellow Essenes
preached. The Essenes for instance were not only vegetarians and pacifists but opposed all
forms of sacrifice human and animal. They were against all forms of authoritarianism and
wealth. The gulf between these ways and the barbarous and oppressive material greed that
the church came to be known for are of the highest, if not altogether untypical, ironies of
history.
St. Paul then as we see was a creator of a new set of truths and values that arguably had
been pregnant within civilisation since the time of Socrates. Yet it is he that brings them out
into the open air, into the churches and the hearts of men. By using the figure of Jesus, by
mythologizing the life and more importantly, what it meant for the rest of mankind, St. Paul
created the values that would hold sway for the next 2000 years. Even today we are still
experiencing the after effects of St. Paul’s flirt with the brush. It matters little about the
historic actuality of St. Paul’s Jesus. As with Homers Achilles, Saint Paul mythologized the
life of Jesus to create a new morality out of the decadence of the old. The catholic world,
which is the result of St Paul’s value system, revolts against the Greek conception of values.
It is a world that is ascetic and reserved. Its god preaches moderation, submissiveness and
denial of the senses, which the Greek gods revelled in. Its god is aloof and beyond, he is
untouchable. This is the opposite of the Greek gods, who played direct parts in the lives of
men. Zeus flies on down from Olympus in all his thunderous grandeur each and every time
that he is to take a maiden for the night. St Paul’s god has to act through an intermediary,
the Archangel Gabriel, even when he seeks a son through the Virgin Mary.

From Renaissance times on there are several minor figures that characterize ages with
attempts at new values. Goethe, with his Faust, is one example. Faust in some ways is like
a premonition of modern man, selling his soul for ultimate power. It is the moment when
Faust translates the line from the bible: “In the beginning was the word” into “In the
beginning was the deed” that all existentialism was born. It is only our actions that can
define our being. In Faust part 2 we see the first hints at the industrial revolution and the
inevitably tragic mechanisation of man. Goethe was a genius of his time yet he is still
steeped in the aura of St. Paul’s Christian worldview. The devil Mephisto who appears
before Faust is still very much a Christian concept. It is still within the old that Goethe
operates.

The Marquis de Sade is perhaps the next in this short line of figures that have defined
whole epochs of human life. The world in which we live today is Sade's world. Sade is the
figure who defines Nihilism, he is the one who gives it shape and creates new values to an
extreme like no other would attempt nor dare to. Sade’s world is characterized by
immoralism and in this he goes way beyond Goethe. For Goethe the Christian morality and
god of St. Paul were still very much alive. This is why Romanticism, the movement which
evolved around Goethe was limited in scope as it was still operating within Christian values
and boundaries. For the romantics to transgress meant inevitably to embrace evil as
opposed to good. This is as far as romanticism could takes things. Sade creates the next
world in its entirety, as it is one beyond both good and evil. Those value judgements cease
to operate and the wheel of history, upon its celestial ocean is churned ever onward. Sade’s
world is a world of immoralism. It is a world where the only values that can exist are anti-
values. It is a world of both sexual and intellectual freedom. Sade, more so than any other,
is an artist purely through conduct. As a writer it is fair to say that he is tedious and
repetitive. In further comparison with Goethe there is no contest which is the greater of the
two. Yet it is Sade who is far more conceptually overcoming of the two. In the age of St.
Paul sexuality was scorned upon but now it takes its chances and breaks free. Sade, ever

6
the philosopher of the bedroom, takes sex onto its true philosophical potential as among the
high art forms. Both through its capacity for experimentation and expressive potential, its
emotional extremes and the use of the body, which the sculptures of the plastic arts could
only hint at. The act of intercourse and all the ecstatic pleasures and agonies that the
human body is capable of experiencing are explored to their limit. It is Sade then who is the
great artistic genius of our era. Others have come and defined values of lesser influence,
yet these still operate within the boundaries of Sade’s age of nihilism.
Sade revolts in the extreme against the previous era. Throughout medieval times
Catholicism did not bring about a single form of radically new values. Sade is the harbinger
of Nihilism. His vision of sensual pleasures combines the Dionysian excess of the Greek
world with the corruption and sense of sinfulness associated with the Catholic world. The
Hellenic world was innocent in its orgies as both the Apollonian and Dionysian aspects are
beyond good and evil. Nihilism was to be a reminder, but for Sade god was still only fresh in
his grave. It is the presence of god in the romantic era that gives Sade’s worldview its
tension. Sade was an unmutual as he lived under the strict times of asceticism. The era he
inspired was that of today but in his own time he was seen in far less favourable terms. It
was the era of the French revolution, which brought about certain upheavals but ethically
things did not change that far. The ‘rationality at any cost’ mindset of the Jacobins was in
utter antithesis to Sade’s world-view. It is an age where eternal values still have the illusion
of authority. Under such conditions, as the romantics showed, the only way to revolt against
good is to embrace evil. Yet Sade is the first to take us beyond these conceptions and gives
us the first glimpse of how it is at least possible to live according to an entirely ulterior mind
frame. To rebel against the values of the established order of conformity means to question
and for the time being, until the death of god is acutely realised, that all unmutuals must
embrace evil. Sade creates the new world in which vice is to play the part of newfound
saviour. The nihilist world then again turns the wheel of history onward. It is a synthesis in a
way of the two previous worlds. It embraces as thesis the ecstatic state from the Greeks
along with the feeling of corruption and sinfulness as antithesis from the catholic. Out of this
contradiction is formed the synthesis of nihilism.

In the age of mass communication and the nats attention span of the media, it is hard to say
who at present shows us the next stage of this process or at least hints at the next radical
shift in truths, values and laws. The truths and values of this age cannot be defined. All is
flux and Heraclitus is righter than ever today. Indeed all that is solid has melted into air. The
experience of modernity and post-modernity, have given the illusion of the end of history.
Yet this is only an illusion perpetuated by the ruling classes in order to force us to accept the
present state of affairs and to not strive for a fairer or higher level of existence. Inevitably the
wheel will turn again yet with the state of the 21st century it is difficult to foresee a single
figure ever having such ubiquitous effect. Mass media and mediocrity have seen to that, yet
perhaps it is in the solipsistic nature of the present from which the next worldview will be
formed. Not from the one but from the multitude? Homer was not necessarily a single poet
but perhaps any number of bards operating between the Mycenaean and classical ages. By
combining the political and cultural forces behind history we can see this course of events
as a historical process and come to understand how each influenced the other up to and
beyond the current stage.

7
 HEGELIAN HISTORICAL PROCESS:

HELLENISM
Age of Homer

THESIS: Socratic dialectics

ANTITHESIS: Palestinian ethics

SYNTHESIS:
CHRISTIANITY
Age of St. Paul

THESIS: Catholicism

ANTITHESIS: Protestantism

(SYNTHESIS:
THE ENLIGHTENMENT?
Age of Goethe

THESIS: Occultism

ANTITHESIS: Romanticism)

SYNTHESIS:
NIHILISM
Age of De Sade

THESIS: Communism

ANTITHESIS: Fascism

SYNTHESIS:
SOLIPSISM?

It could be argued that Marx and Nietzsche having defined the clash of political ideologies
during the 20th century are among these creators. Yet these ideologies those of communism
and fascism are really two small parts of the larger issue of nihilism. Nietzsche’s main
contention, however he managed to define 20th century political movement, is that to a
certain extent it could be said that he was apolitical. His main concern was that of culture
not politics, and understanding the conditions under which the healthiest spirited culture
could grow. The observation he made that militarily strong countries are culturally in decline
is an interesting point in regards to our own era. As it could be said that the USA has
produced an excess of cultural identities since its ascent to world power in the aftermath of
the world war. Yet these cultural identities have no foundations in actual communities, the
very nature of them being their creation by big business, which in turn sells certain cultural
identities to the public. A totally administrated society is not a free one. Being told to choose
between A and B as how you identify yourself is no form of selfhood. The creator of values
in this type of world is therefore someone who embraces frivolity, and someone who rejects

8
intellectualism just as the romantics of Sade’s time rejected god. Should the next era of
cultural values spring forth from this point, it will again, embracing its historic position, reject
its origins and form itself out of its previous contradictions. Yet the solipsistic world is one,
which embraces contradiction. It will embrace the individual in order to stand for all. It will
show a facet of pious ness to embrace excess. This age of solipsistic values can about out
of the utter extremes of the previous worldviews. Globalisation and internationalism are a
part of this solipsistic world. This now means that this world-view cannot be limited to
geographical spheres as all before. Yet the world it embraces is only a portion of the actual
world. When we hear about ‘the biggest band in the world’ or ‘the most beautiful woman in
the world’ these are relative terms as that which is understood by the term ‘world’ spans but
a portion of the globe. It only really recognises the western aspects of the world. Hence we
can call an East European film ‘foreign’ and yet take onboard Hollywood as if it were our
own. The worldviews that we have so far analysed, those of Homer, St. Paul and De Sade
are far from the only ones. These are merely the dominant forces that have shaped the
western world and therefore the most dominant on the whole world scale. This however
does not mean to say that they are the only ones; it would be the height of typical western
arrogance to suggest so. In order to complete this theory of historical dialectics it is
necessary to look into all world cultures. How the truths and values embraced in the new
world came to revolve around the cosmos and human sacrifice, for instance, along with how
eastern values came to uphold the denial of the will etc. All unmutuals then who would be
creators today must become a new form of aristocrat. Not an aristocrat of material wealth
but of cultural wealth. It is important as ever before for all artistic creators of truths and
values to travel in the same spirit as their predecessors. They must strive, as did the
romantics to understand different ways of both different times and locations in order to
create new syntheses. The path is not therefore to impose one system upon another, but to
understand each and for the new path to evolve either out of current opposites or in
negation of them.

3. THUS SPOKE VIRACOCHA

Although it could be said that the intervention of the Spaniards and Christianity, in the Time
of Columbus, disrupted the natural evolution of Meso-American values, and cut short its
logical evolution in the form of Hegelian analysis we have used in reference to the values
upheld in the old world, the continent was never totally isolated, before that time from
outside influence. Wherever we look in the world we will find these interruptions, which are
in themselves the agitations that provoke such change.

He came in a time of chaos, to set the Earth to rights. The world had been
inundated by a great flood and plunged into darkness by the disappearance
of the sun. Society had fallen into disorder, and the people suffered much
hardship. Then there suddenly appeared, coming from the south, a white
man of large stature and authoritive demeanor. This man had such great
power that he changed the hills into valleys and from the valleys made great
hills, causing streams to flow from the living stone.

The truths and values upheld by early Meso-America could be said in a way to be the
consequence of an early over seas contact. Meso-American religious beliefs abound with
tales of bearded white men who came from across the seas in boats “that moved without
paddles” and taught the Indians civilisation and agriculture. It can be tempting to shy away
from the Fascist implications in such a theory of the dawn of Meso-American culture: that it
was a white man who first gave the indigenous Indians their truths and values, yet these are

9
the myths past down through the cultures of the Incas, Aztecs, Mayans and Olmecs. These
myths seem to predate any recognised old world contact, yet whether we see these civiliser
heroes as originating from the exploits of historical sea farers or the godly inventions of
Indian folk tales is in this context irrelevant. It is as a shaper of culture and values which we
are exploring this subject.
The Inca high god was known as Viracocha. Likewise it is not our object to prove one way
or the other whether Viracocha was a historical figure or not as it is the values that he taught
that we are interested in. So far as we are concerned there is no difference between a
historical Viracocha disseminating his views, to an anonymous Inca who created the myth of
Viracocha and thereby the values that he upheld. Therefore when we use the term
‘Viracocha’ there is no difference between these two potential origins for the values of this
thinker.
Viracocha was a civilising hero in much the same vein as the god Osirus was to the
Egyptians. The truths and values upheld by Viracocha came to characterise those upheld in
agreement with by the Meso-American people, up until the time of the arrival of the
Spaniards. Viracocha holds the high place in the Meso-American world view, in a similar
way to how the truths and values professed by homer in the Iliad and by St. Paul in the New
testament exercised influence over the old world.

“This man traveled along the highland route to the north, working marvels as
he went. In many places he gave men instructions how they should live,
speaking to them with great love and kindness and admonishing them to be
good and to do no damage or injury one to another, but to love one another
and show charity to all.
Seeing the condition the people were in, he was ashamed for them. He set
down at lake Titicaca with his rods of gold, a little shorter than a mans arm
and two fingers in thickness. Whenever he stopped to eat or sleep, he
plunged his rods into the earth. At the spot where, with one single thrust,
they disappeared entirely, there he would establish and hold his court. The
peoples whom he had brought under his sway would be maintained by him
in a state of justice and reason, with pity, mercy and mildness.”

Viracocha spent his time wandering and teaching wherever he met peoples. He taught
agriculture and how to treat others in a dignified manner. In this way the truths and values of
this early era were similar in content to the utilitarianists or a primitivist version of Kants
conception of universal ethics put forth in his categorical imperative. In many ways the ease
with which the Spanish imposed Christianity upon the continent, could be said to have been
possible due to the fact being that Viracochas teachings were so similar to those of Christ in
their essence already. When Christianity was imposed upon the continent, for many
indigenous peoples it was a simple thing to exchange the Title Viracocha for that of Jesus,
along with the relevant iconography, whilst not really having changed to Christianity at all!
Viracocha was opposed to any form of living sacrifice both human and animal. Flowers were
the proposed alternative offerings and for many years this was the custom performed by the
masses and upheld by the ruling class. The success of the Viracocha doctrine is apparent in
its ubiquitous nature throughout Meso-America. The same myth is present from Mexico
down through the Andes. In Teotihuacán, the Mayan capital close by to modern Mexico City,
the god Quetzalcoatl was upheld. The story of Quetzalcoatl is basically the same as that of
Viracocha in Peru, and that of Kukalkan in the Yucatan area. As artist creator of values that
define both eras of time and geographical areas as vast as Meso-America, the Viracocha
doctrine is among the few ideologies that have come to shape history and society in the
highest degrees.

10
However just as with the coming of St. Paul in the old world tradition, turning the ideas of
Jesus upon their head, the same seems to have occurred with the Viracocha doctrine. Long
before the arrival of the Spaniards, ideas central to the original teachings of the Viracocha
doctrine would encounter reaction. As on the old continent thesis inevitably inspires
antithesis. An interesting twist in the evolution of the truths and values upheld in the new
world is the advent of the custom of human sacrifice. How could a system of values, which
upheld such principles of altruism have evolved into that despotic and bloodthirsty
obsession that we know became of the Inca and Aztec empires? It is after all the values
upheld by the Viracocha doctrine from which the later antipodal values sprang!

“Working great miracles by his words, he came to the district of the Cannas
and there, near a village called Cacha; the people rose up against him and
threatened to stone him. They saw him sink to his knees and raise his hands
to heaven as if beseeching aid in the peril, which beset him. The Indians
declare that thereupon they saw fire in the sky, which seemed all around
them. Full of fear they approached him whom they had intended to kill and
besought him to forgive them. Presently they saw that the fire was
extinguished at his command, though stones were consumed by fire in such
wise that large blocks could be lifted by hand as if they were cork.
Upon leaving the place where this occurred, eventually he came to the coast
and there, holding his mantle, he went forth amidst the waves and was seen
no more. And as he went they gave him the name Viracocha, which means
'Foam of The Sea'.”

Viracocha’s departure across the waves is symbolic of the reaction that occurred against
the values that had predominated during this period. As with Quetzalcoatl in Mexico, who is
humiliated and outcast by Tezcatlipoca, the shadow god. Both these events are
metaphorical for the radical shift in values that were occurring in that epoch. Perhaps we
shall never know the events or reasons for such a radical shift in mind frames. The
intervention of the Spaniards halted this brutal rule of barbarism with their imperialist
colonial barbarism, yet their intervention cost much irreplaceable historical knowledge.
However we can see dialectically how thesis and antithesis can evolve a given world view
into that, which can appear as its opposite. Yet as we have seen these opposites are
usually created from more complex elements of the same central doctrine. The advent of
astrological and astronomical beliefs amongst the Meso-American peoples certainly played
a vital part in this paradigm shift. The teachings of Viracocha had left a fascination with the
stars, their movements and most significantly that these movements had direct
consequences to communities on Earth. Out of the importance that came to be attached to
the observation of the stars, a ruling class in the empires of both the Incas and Aztecs,
evolved out of the scientist/ astrologer casts of society. It was they who followed Viracocha
in the formation of values, values that now came to include the metaphysical. The sacrifice
of the empirical world for the sake of the metaphysical, as we saw in the old world, is the
first sign of human reason becoming turned in upon and against itself. The truths and values
upheld from hereon became those of sacrifice and the antithesis to those proposed by
Viracocha. Life among the stars became of primary importance, life on earth being merely
an imperfect mirror image of the heavens above. Absolute obsession with the stars brought
about belief in predictions made from them, such as the end of the world. Earthly existence
then as the mirror image of that above became that which was used to try to influence the
world above. The rational behind all human sacrifice was to halt the stars in their tracks from
their ever-onward march towards the end of the world. The ruling cast of astronomer priests
demanded this sacrifice from the masses, who had been immersed in the belief of its
necessity, since its legitimacy seemed secure from its adaption of the Viracocha doctrine.

11
These gruesome human sacrifices were performed to prevent that which seemed to them to
be the inevitable destruction of the world and in maintain the present social order of control.
In many ways as far as the ruling class was concerned there was no difference between
these two cataclysmic potentialities.
Yet the historical process continues, its inevitability being no different than that of the
rotation of the heavens. The stars revolving from the ever expanding of the universe and the
tilt of the Earth in space creating the phenomena of the precession of the equinoxes, and
earthly events evolving from social antagonisms. With the advent of the Spanish colonial
order, Meso-American belief systems became amalgamated with those of the old world.
Through this process Meso-American thought became latinised. It came to express itself in
the language of its colonisers. Ideas and values divorced from the language of their original
context bring about different interpretations. In many ways the truths and values upheld in
the old world reflect the consequences of an astronomer cast seizing power. As we have
seen the predominant religions from the old world also had their basis in representing
astronomical information. The Sphinx representing the age of Leo, Jesus representing the
age of Pisces etc. Every day life and all actions, under these orders, are forever interpreted
in the context of the above. The pre-Spanish American religions did not however deal with
the totally metaphysical, as with the system of St. Paul, in their conception of heaven. Nor
was heaven considered in the opposite sense, such as the Mount Olympus of Homer. It is in
between the two dominant systems, set out in the old world, which that of the new world
resides. It is beyond yet it is visible to all in the night sky. The movement of the stars took on
metaphysical meanings but it was still a system grounded in empirical observation of that
phenomenon, unlike the divine revelations of the old world. Old world beliefs may have
begun from astronomical observation, but this was later forgotten, as the narratives derived
from them took on a life of their own. New world religious beliefs retained the central theme
of the continuing importance of the influence of the stars.

4. THE AGE OF SOLIPSISM

Eternal values have been discarded and the crisis of Nihilism and its void can only be
avoided through the artistic creation of solipsistic values. Solipsism is then perhaps the next
worldview to follow nihilism. As we saw earlier both fascism and communism were created
out of the struggle against the ethical void. So it is not the case of either communism or
fascism leading to the next stage as Marx would have it but a synthesis of both. The
Hitlerian revolution directly embraced nihilism and its inevitable self-destruction was only too
predictable. The Bolshevik revolution evolved out of the 19th century Russian nihilist
movement against Tsarist repression. Solipsism is that synthesis of the common and the
great; the crowd and the individual. It is that which we all perhaps unconsciously embrace
already, that we are all artists and have the ability to change existence, both our own and
that of all. So in this sense it is by the very nature of the solipsistic age that a single truth
and value creator does not define it as each unwittingly create their own. We may not notice
it but we all practice practical solipsism every day. The act of listening to a Walkman on the
train, e-mail and telephones as opposed to direct contact with concrete humanity. Lives
become evermore internalised and isolated. The cult of the individual it seems will not lead
to the New Jerusalem but to rational isolation. The problem posed by the solipsistic
worldview then is how to live for its own sake without withdrawing completely from the world
of our kind. This is not to propose the absurdity of a world run by artists yet it seems to be
the only way to combat the complete bankruptcy of ideas in our own time. People need to
reawaken to their own roles as creators and to once again become participants in life
instead of merely spectators. This is why the concept of the overman is so important as it

12
encourages us to constantly reinvent ourselves. Most never achieve self-overcoming, as the
illusion of stability is what gives them their excuses. How we spend our infancy in particular
shows how malleable we are yet the first thing we learn in life is to imitate. In this way we
are perpetuating that which already is and not bringing anything new into the world. It is sad
that most people never evolve beyond this imitating phase (even most who seem different
are merely imitating a more obscure form of role model.) As we have seen man does not
have an essence, which defines what he shall be, yet habit and routine can almost blind us
to this revelation of selfhood. Because of habit most people fail to become ‘the new’ as they
do not progress beyond this first stage of human potential and spend their lives following
out what has been set for them. In infancy we learn to imitate parents and later in life
through other role models. The media conception of the celebrity is the perfect stimulus to
perpetuate this docile form of existence. Through celebrities we find other figures through
whom to imitate and thus live through.

5. THE GENUINE

So in a world like ours where everything is paraded and peoples lives are so constantly on
display, how can the genuine human being prove himself, if not to others then to himself?
The only way he can prove, to himself, that his intentions are just as they appear to be is by
backing away from all recognition for the deed even to the point of concealment.
The genuine person does not back away because of modesty, even the modest person
subconsciously wants mitigation, and is another little arrogance, which we allow ourselves.
The genuine person then torments himself with the problem that if people know of his deed
then the intention behind it will be forever in doubt. He battles with the solipsist notion that if
others don’t see an event as far as they are concerned it didn’t really happen. In just this
way the moment these ideas are read by another, the true intent behind my writing them will
be thrown into doubt. Am I expressing my obsessive thoughts to exercise them? Or am I
putting on literary airs?
I can only know the legitimacy of what I write for sure, whilst it is still unknown.
How can a text, therefore, ‘mean what it means’? Before the event it is a true representation
of my thoughts, ideas and influences, after the event it becomes merely a text, which says
‘look at me’, ‘look at what I want you to think I know’ or ‘look at how clever I think I am’. But
we cannot say for sure in which sense the text will be understood.
It is impossible for an author or for any type of artist for that matter to be present inside the
head of his audience to defend himself.
So how can someone prove to others that what he writes is from his passions and
obsessions after the event? In short he can’t, only by not showing it. He can only prove that
he is not ‘putting on airs’ if the text is discovered unintentionally. –But even this can be
fabricated, eh?
We mythologize and build up everything so much can’t we simply appreciate things for what
they are without having to resort to such artistic license? In the act of mythologizing we do
nothing but turn other people into objects. Objects of such a nature that we determine solely
by ourselves. Our expectations of everything and each other are so high that we cannot
possibly live comfortably with them.
We are impounded to such degrees of wretched solipsism. We are so insecure in the need
to prove ourselves to everyone around us. Do our lives really need to be so constantly on
display? In this case all such unmutuals become trapped by their own sufficiency and before
long they cannot even do as much as open their mouths.

13
It seems that almost all of our energies during life are geared up to preserve it for after we
enter the great void. As if the memory and opinion of us in others had a direct bearing on
the reality of what we are. As if this were more important than the actual living of that life.
I have always found this peculiar. I suppose my lack of ability to understand lies in my
conviction that recognition is merely a blockade to freedom. In many cases life is past on to
a spouse, possessions change hands as though we could somehow continue to live on in
others or that their interests in our things had any similarity to how we appreciated them
ourselves.
This is in strict contrast to unmutuals, who upon death do not want to be remembered. Who
admit that they cannot bear the thought. Even in life it causes them great agony that it is
possible for people to be thinking of them, without their knowing, or being able to be there in
their heads to defend themselves.
That is not morbid- it is merely that different system of values of which we unmutuals adhere
to!
People should act and interact, enjoy each other’s company and that is all. When they part
it should be as though the other doesn’t exist. We can do without multiple idealized
representational versions of each other surely?
When a person is gone don’t remember them. Don’t gather round to bullshit about how
great they were. Appreciate or despise them in their presence and no more.
Some, I suspect, find it morbid that such characters do not even want a grave or a funeral
either. The whole thing is ludicrous. In such a secular age as ours it is more a grave for out
dated religious beliefs than for the individual concerned. The whole funeral ceremony too is
like a contradiction of what such a person actually can stand for. Like Sartre’s overblown
funeral with a procession of thousands. Our expectations of everything and each other are
so high that we cannot possibly live comfortably with them.
Is it too much to ask for a person to live their life as a flowing succession of events and not
as though we were the staring role of a movie? Everyone lives like this these days. If it is
not on display -It may as well not have happened. This sentence may as well not exist until
someone else reads it!
Kierkegaard’s ideas on containment are the antithesis of that expressed here. To him it was
only through recognition of deeds that we could grow or become more directly accountable
for our actions. But this is superfluous. Surely our actions have more merit if they are
unrecognised? The fact that they were not performed for its sake must show a more
genuine reasoning behind them? In this sense Kafka perhaps can possibly make a claim
towards the genuine in that he ordered all his works burnt.
The great appeal of ‘The Self: The Movie’ is that we deceive ourselves into putting up with
all the tediousness we experience day to day as we imagine eventually it will be edited from
the film.
When our lives reach a certain point and we ‘fall out of the habit of living’, as Dostoyevsky’s
underground man would have it, we can console ourselves that the movie ended happily
and this is just the epilogue.
The trick it seems for everyone but the self-styled Hamlets is to end the movie before the
tragedy.
How do you like that Euripides?
Is this simply because we cannot cope with the utter banality of our existence?
Then change that existence, don’t mythologize it!

14
 6. THE UNMUTUAL

The Overman. The Rational Egoist. The Outsider. The New man. The Neophilus. The
Antipodes. The Antichrist. The Discordian. The Reactionary. The Stranger. The
Disharmonious. The Rebels. The Deviants. Each era has had its concepts for a figure of the
future and what such a figure could stand for. A figure of both self-overcoming and humility.
What has proceeded was the critique of all that has past. That which follows is the
manifesto of unmutual man:
What is the moral of any story? What have we learnt thus far? That to prove something you
should be willing to die for it? Does Socrates’ plagerism by anticipation of Christs sacrifice
prove this point? On the contrary it proves nothing but that martyrdom brings escapist
romantacicm to dubious moral convictions!
Who is the unmutual?
Throughout history the unmutual is the figure who seeks the claim to the genuine. The
figure who does not seek truth at all costs as the Russian nihilists would have it but who
seeks to understand rather the essence of truth, as opposed to its empirical usefulness. To
recognize and to use it to his own advantage.
To be mutual is to be analogous with ones time, to conform with the present ages
conceptions of truth and beauty. It is to above all have the appearance of things, the
appearance of being truthful, the appearance of beauty in the eyes of the current fashion. If
not necessarily out of religious submission then at least out of an a priori submission to the
state. The unmutual is the figure who transcends, who is antipodal in all of its senses. The
unmutual seeks the genuine, from which there can be no compromise, and accepts the
inherent nature of the genuine that it is to give the appearance of indifference to the
genuine. In fact the unmutual can recognize no boundaries except those self-imposed.
Under what conditions can such a figure appear? We have already discussed all previous
incarnations of this figure, the overman, the new man, and his bond with tragedy. The lower
classes are too caught up in the material process of survival so it seems unlikely that such
tempermented individuals will be nurtured. In such conditions if an unmutual did appear
they would be motivated by nothing but resentment, and slave morality has no claim to the
genuine.
The higher classes likewise are unlikely to produce such a figure. Here any such
realizations will come about more through idleness of fancy that cannot lay claim to the
intensity of being required of the genuine. It can only come about therefore in the middle
classes, having enough harshness of environment to forge and yet enough liberty of time
for consolidation.
The unmutual is thus named as we are dealing with a figure who is self sufficient. His
embrace with the genuine makes it in his nature to be indifferent to the realization of his
actions outside of him self. Therefore he is not trapped like previous figures by the failure of
recognition. In fact he has already recognized recognition as a blockade to freedom and a
denouncement of the genuine.
The unmutual is a creator like all previous artistic genii, and the very creation of his
solipsistic values and truths reaffirm his position as upholder of the genuine.
He is perhaps the first figure since those self-deceptive geniuses those creators of god to
recognize the purpose of such a being. It is always taught that no artistic creation takes
place in a vacuum. The unmutual is the first since god to achieve this high form of creation.
It is the unmutuals unique talent then to disregard all that has previously been upheld to
forge a new way. Undeterred by the opinions of others. In his raw unrealized state, the
unmutual is the man of metaphysical rebellion, revolt against all opposing forces, not so
much a political but a personal revolt. The revolt is metaphysical as it is the revolt within the

15
individual to cast off all inoculated dogmas that have persisted since that first fatal error of
humankind.
It is therefore only by saving himself and for us all to save ourselves that there is any way to
save all of humankind. As without such self-overcoming no one would have the right to even
try. Only in a world where the unmutual is ubiquitous can there be harmony. In such a world
temporal, relative truths will dominate and contradiction will be avoided through universal
personalized truths and values. Indeed ‘everything that is solid melts into air’ but such air
will be as fresh as the dawn.
However in a world where the unmutual, the individual is a minority, he can only exist as a
subversion from the norm. a stray passionate figure on the periphery of life’s stage and
society, but in such a way he affirms life through his trancendence from it.
For others the quest for justice and political responsibility are concepts arrived at a priori.
Such as the men of metaphysical revolt. The unmutual, in his refined, fully realized state
sees through these reasonings and in doing so transcends the metaphysical rational for
justice. For him terms such as ‘justice’ and what they entail are worthless, indeed
‘everything is permitted’. But through the long forging process of solipsistic values he arrives
at his own rational for action. A far more genuine rational for action it is in the name of the
genuine that the unmutual stands for ontological justice.
He stands at the position between the phenomena and the thing in itself. Recognizing that
many of the values we take for granted have no bearing a posteriori, he takes such a priori
values and solidifies them in a way that neither modern secularism nor Kant’s categorical
imperative were able.
The categorical imperative tried to generalize values for the whole of society. To the liberal
this may sound like a good idea but in practice the attempt to free everyone merely
enslaved them to one another. It is in its antithesis through individual values for each person
that we may resolve the problem.
It is perhaps an irony of Aeshylusian magnitude therefore that the kind of values finally
upheld by the unmutual inevitably become those not dissimilar to the left. Yet these values
have now been arrived at through a more substantial thought process. No more weak
kneed moralism about rights, but a harsh and thorough eye to the world, along with the
acceptance and responsibility for action that inevitably follows.
Such a figure is not destined for leadership. He will encourage individual autonomy, but to
suggest that he could bring about an age of the unmutual is a contradiction in terms. The
unmutual can never become the institution, as institutions need to have a systematic
structure. The unmutual works counter to all systematic and cohesive thought processes.
The unmutual is rather a figure that will work, unknown within the system, operating at a
grassroots level. It is only here that like minded adepts can be found.
To suggest that such a figure could become a Napoleon is unthinkable. Napoleon took the
reigns of power and the inevitable compromises of which it entailed. For the unmutual there
can be no such compromise. Working at a grassroots level, the influence of such figures is
felt indirectly.
In any age what is it that is heard most clearly or commands the most respect and
authority? The most illiterate. In which case how can one make sure one is always heard?
Never have anything to say. And so the unmutual accepts his quest. The path of the
genuine leads through obscurity. But the unmutual is not trapped by the notion of the
genuine into isolation, the way in which others have. Rather the process of conceptual
isolation through which the genuine forges him is where he derives his strength for that
which is to come. He alone, it seems can stand alone. It is in this inner state that is born the
first solipsistic values of the future.

16
It seems in our society Descartes famous dictum “I think therefore I am,” has been turned
upon its head. The way we act and the reasoning behind how we act for the most part it
would be more the case of ‘they’ think therefore I am.
Previously people have only lived in an anti-solipsist way. We may think that the
individualist, selfish nature of the world in which we live is about the self yet this principle is
subordinated to our submission to others. In our longing for our own desires we comform to
that which others think of us. Through doing this we turn others into objects whose sole
purpose is to observe us and approve of us. It is this approval above all that has previously
ruled our lives. So even through individuality we are still shackled to the other and they to
us. So till now people have only lived in the heads of other people. We cannot ever perceive
that which occurs in their heads but it is for this that we live, for its appearance to others.
Life would lose all meaning if there was no crowd for us to perform before. The creation of
solipsistic values and truths is the attempt to live for its own sake, and to carry through with
the existential task of achieving authentic existence. These values which hold the self in
esteem are not against others, as through the very nature of these values, as for the first
time, we come to accept others as soverign beings in their own right, just as ourselves. As
we no longer rely upon others, as we have before, as a means of justifying ourselves to the
world, we can finally accept them as that which they are in themselves and not merely as
objects of use in our perception.
No more mythologizing. We live with our every action before the crowd and what little
escapes the crowds attention we feel the need to obsessively regail them of the exploits
with which we have engaged ourselves. So we mythologize our lives not merely for the
crowds sake but also for our insecurities that if an event goes unseen it is generally may
well have never occurred. We mythologize our lives as the event in itself always leaves
something to be desired and we only ever see others in terms of ourselves. The creation of
solipsistic values and truths brings an end to such self-deception and brings about a
healthier acceptance of others as people in themselves. No longer needing to perform the
function of approval which we had previously employed them in.
Not everyone will be able to embrace these new values. People who can create a new way
or at least recognize one are usually in the minority. But history has proven that this is how
new ways come about and that they can only be gradually embraced if they are to one day
continue our path.

We can conclude therefore that the people of the world can be separated into two distinct
categories, these being the self-deceptive and the unmutuals. Let it be said that, neither
category has more of a right to exist, and neither is higher or lower than the other, as this is
not an issue of class hierarchies. Each category provides towards the future of the race, in
their own way, the first through reproduction, the second through culture and new ideas.
The majority has always been of the self-deceptive type and tend to be of either a religious
or susceptible nature and prone to romanticised notions in regards to anything in their
environment. These people perform the material serving and reproduction of the species,
along with their submission to either religion or their own fancies, which are always provided
by the state through the concept of ‘total administration’. So either way, they live in
obedience to the system and do not question it. However as Raskolnikov stated, there is
nothing at all degrading to them in this.
The unmutuals are a far rarer breed and generally a sterner type, who face reality and truth
at any cost. They are the rational egoists who will reject everything which cannot be proven
through empirical experience. Truth is all they are concerned about and what cannot be
established as such is merely useless and harmful ‘romantic rubbish’. As it is only through
will power and ruthless criticism of all that exists that we can move forward. They are more

17
reliable and responsible in nature but will perhaps not seem it to the majority as it is only
towards principles and groups to whom they feel they belong that they will act as such.

‘Egoism is not to be condemned without qualification. Egoism is not a vice.

Egoism gleams in the eye of an animal. Moralists bravely thunder against it,
instead of building on it. What moralists try and deny is the great, inner
citadel of human dignity. They want to make men tearful, sentimental,
insipid, kindly creatures, asking to be made slaves… but to tear egoism from
a man’s heart is to rob him of his living principles, of the yeast and salt of
his personality. Destroy a man’s altruism, and you get a savage orang-utan,
but if you destroy his egoism you generate a tame monkey.’3

In which case, they may be regarded with suspicion, but only as they have a more intuitive
sense of self than the majority. They are also far more prone to turn to crime but only
through its logical advantages never through mere folly, like Dostoyevsky’s Ivan Karamazov
stated.
They are the ones equipped with the strength and courage to achieve that which the rest
cannot. The strength, not only to tear off all masks and to blow up all revered principles and
norms, of the exterior world, but also of the interior. As Bazarov stated:

‘No, friend if you have decided to knock everything down, you must knock
yourself down too!...’4

So does the author consider himself an unmutuals? Oh wouldn’t you like to know the
heights of ‘egoism’ possible in self contempt! Through the very act of putting forth these
ideas it is impossible not to become unmutual and to sever the link with the majority, but it is
for the benefit of the majority of the future that these ideas here express will find their true
expression. At present unmutuals are generally just as deeply submerged in the decadence
of the Judeo-Christian ethical downward spiral as everyone else so it would be wrong to
suggest that they have somehow escaped it, in short there is still a fair degree of mediocrity
in unmutuals as everyone else, but it is in facing up to this mediocrity that is perhaps the
first step to be undertaken. As yet there are precious few strong willed enough to fully
embrace this idea. A rational egoist or an unmutual would not necessarily be conscious of
what they were. It is something in a person’s nature, in their temperament, something
intuitive in the unmutual way a person acts. I am well aware of the elitism inherent in this
theory and also of the dangers of elitist theories, but it is the task of the unmutuals and the
rational egoists to live dangerously.
In this sense then, the term rational egoism should not be misunderstood, as by ‘rational’ I
am not referring to a cold logically dry outlook. I mean only the acceptance of our inherent
egoism instead of moralising or deceiving ourselves against it, and use it for the
advancement of all. Nor does it cast out the irrational, as paradoxically this form of
rationality can do nothing but accept the irrational in the state of nature. It therefore
embraces the absurd and irrationality, in that we should live, passionately in harmony with it.
It is therefore not a dry philosophical undertaking, as some would surmise, on the contrary
the rational egoist is passionately and intensely at one with all his emotive states, and
exhausts them all. It is not therefore, merely a different form of atheism, the absence of god
to the average atheist is no more than a point of indifference, to the unmutuals among us it
is far holier than god could ever be.

3 Herzen, Alexander, ‘My Past & Thoughts’.

4 Turgenev, Ivan, ‘Fathers & Sons’.

18