• Название:

    Timothy The Devil x 3 x

  • Размер: 1.99 Мб
  • Формат: PDF
  • или
  • Название: The Devil: Suicide, Apocalypse & The Abyss
  • Автор: Timothy Donaghue

— Copyright —
Copyright © Become A Living God.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, without the prior written permission of the publisher,
except for brief quotations in critical reviews and other noncommercial use.
First Edition: 2017
View a complete catalog at: BecomeALivingGod.com.
Personal success depends on work ethic, so results will vary.
Consider all information adult knowledge and not legal or
medical advice. Use this at your own risk. Do not violate local, national, or international laws. If any problems occur,
contact a licensed psychologist or doctor immediately. Become A Living God is not responsible for consequences of
actions. This book is for readers of age 18 or older.
Author: Timothy Donaghue
Publisher: Become A Living God


— Bombshells —


No graver evil exists than adversarial apostasy in the purview
of The Tribe. So much so that they personified the essence
of this evil into an archetype known as The Devil. (page 35)
Let it be known: religion does not need to exist in order for
humans to fall in love with truth, goodness, and beauty—a
person need only bathe in the rainbow light of the world’s
grandest marvels while freed from under the ominous
shadow of a fictional god. (p.39)
As if forged out of the purest gold the earth’s crust could
muster, this cosmic maxim—love life—becomes the most
precious legal tender of the species. In the form of a mutual,
consensual social contract: love one another. (p.40)
If humans conceived god and then believed that god created
them in reverse, what does that say about humans? Does not
a parent who believes their own child gave birth to them rank
below an animal? Even a worm knows its own eggs. (p.55)
Thus, god refers to a frozen being, a fixed being, a static being, an ossified being, a fossilized being, a dead being. The
English lexicon possesses a word for this: corpse. (p.57)

— Bombshells —
It is nothing short of remarkable that humanity still cannot
stare reality straight in its cosmic eyes and affirm: you owe us
nothing, and we owe you thing. (p.59)
For the death of god denotes the death of idealism in mankind. The most toxic intellectual venom caused mankind to
fall into a coma over ten thousand years ago. Who can possibly prognosticate what illness and madness will ensue when he
finally opens his eyes and sees reality for the first time, moreover, when it dawns on him how much evil he committed in
his stupor? His ocean of tears would drown the earth. (p.61)
For so long humans have glorified their own existence. They
have claimed to be the privileged sons and daughters of perfect gods—a political rank above royalty!—and yet in this
vain ivory tower they have not once considered the possibility
that they rank on par with fecal matter on the weighted scale
of the universe. (p.65)
Perhaps the secret to life lies in an alternate viewpoint altogether. Rather than injecting anesthesia to numb away the
storm... chase after the storm. Descend into the brimstone
mine of hell and summon its devils to conspire on earth!
When a person jumps into the air, they inevitably hit the
ground. When a species militantly breeds absolutist ideology
into itself for over ten thousand years, they inevitably suffer
an apocalypse of the psyche, an Armageddon of the intellect,
a nuclear winter of the soul. (p.76)
Virtually all major earthly ideologies have entered the nihilistic stage, and they all converge to form an inescapable psychic black hole right now. The only shelter lies in the abyss
of one’s own head. Every single human being from now into
the future will experience fallout in the abyss. (p.79)
Anyone who enjoys the freedom of their own personal moral
valuation cannot be anything other than a joyful pessimist in
a world full of nihilists! (p.81) •

— Timothy —


“He lives through photographs of paintings. His ocean
of tears could drown the earth. He classifies as an endangered
species, so you need to fight for him.”


— Timothy —


— Dedication —



DEDICATE this dissertation to the only man in history who ever thought like me, Friedrich Nietzsche.
His ideas permeate this treatise so thoroughly, you can
almost smell his cologne on the pages. •


— Dedication —


— Confession —



ROTHER Friedrich insisted that a philosopher is
nothing more than a confessor. He means the psychology of an intellectual underlies and justifies
their worldview—that a man or woman’s psychology and
philosophy cannot be separated.
I chiseled these essays as I entered into the most pessimistic and jaded mood of my life thus far. Did the ideas cause
the mood or did the mood cause the ideas?
Honestly, the creation of this hurt very badly. I would
often close my laptop consumed by a dreadful nausea, which
haunted me the rest of the day. I ideated suicide incessantly
and became distant and apathetic to all the loving women in
my life, whom felt worried sick—one even reported me to an
authority as a danger to myself.
Nietzsche casually referenced the abyss in his own prose.
It denotes an intellectual position of nonentity or non-ideology, an acceptance of unreality and amorality—to unveil false
appearance. In simplest terms, it entails abandonment of
faith in absolutist ideals like god, soul, morality, truth,
beauty, and eternity.
In the abyss, psychic disillusionment and pessimism ensue. Nevertheless, as gloomy and unpleasant as this sounds,
Nietzsche did not espouse traditional pessimism per se. To

— Confession —
the contrary, he entreated fellow travelers to love life with his
maxim amor fati, that is, love of fate.
The existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre soberly defined man
as condemned to exist, as if humanity had been created then
abandoned, left behind to live alone without the courtesy of
an explanation as to why. To rationalize such a bizarre mystery, primitive humans invented vain ideals—religion—to
glorify themselves, i.e., absurd mythical tales that not only
excuse human ignorance but deify it rapaciously!
In order to really love life, a person needs to live in reality.
To live in reality, a person needs to expunge idealism. As said
earlier, philosophy is nothing but psychology, alas... this aphoristic dissertation is nothing but the tear-drenched diary of
a solitary wanderer, the diary of a lost soul, of a freak in the
abyss, of... the devil? •

« 10 »

— Tablet —


The Devil
1. The Riddle of the Riddle .......................................... 15
2. The Earliest Nomenclature for God ......................... 16
3. Origins of Diabolism & Satanism. ............................ 17
4. Christianity’s Abuse of Greek Philosophy. ............... 18
5. Origin of Demonology. ............................................. 19
6. Deification & Diabolization ..................................... 20
7. Moral Relativism. ...................................................... 20
8. Classical Liberalism of The Enlightenment.............. 21
9. The First Line of The Bill of Rights. ........................ 22
10. Become a Living Devil. ........................................... 24

11. Reality & Ideality. ................................................... 25
12. Ideal of Pure Reason As Definition of God. ........... 25
13. Worst Transcendental Error. .................................. 27
14. Earliest Natural Philosophy. ................................... 28
15. Hypothesis of Super-Human Causality. ................. 29
16. Advent of Religion. ................................................. 29
« 11 »

— Tablet —
17. Psychology of Polytheism........................................ 30
18. Psychology of Monotheism. .................................... 30
19. Discovery of Morality.............................................. 31
20. Advent of Sacrificial Worship. ................................ 31
21. Inception of the Priest Class. .................................. 32
22. Politicization of the Priest Class. ............................ 33
23. Homicide by the Priest Class. ................................. 33
24. Psychopathization of the Priest Class. .................... 33
25. Masochization of the Lay Class. ............................. 34
26. Inception of Holy Wars. ......................................... 34
27. Birth of The Devil................................................... 35
28. Entire Psychology of Religion. ................................ 37
29. Current Status of Religion. ..................................... 38
30. Warning Against Statism. ....................................... 38
31. Grounds of Secular Morality. .................................. 39
32. Psychology of Secularism. ....................................... 40
33. Terms of a Social Contract. .................................... 41
34. Best Future for Humanity. ...................................... 41
35. Afterword ................................................................ 42

36. Parable of the Assassin. ........................................... 43
37. Earliest Assassins. ................................................... 44
38. Zombie Sadist ......................................................... 44
39. Ostracism, not Extermination. ................................ 45
40. Naked Imperialism. ................................................. 45
41. Universal Force. ...................................................... 46
42. Idealism as Religion of Absolutism. ........................ 47
43. Truest Enemy of Antitheism. ................................. 49
44. Statism as Politics of Force. .................................... 50
45. Genetic Sadomasochism. ........................................ 51
46. Masochistic Psychology. ......................................... 52
47. Suicide Mission ....................................................... 54
48. Theogony. ............................................................... 55
49. Immortal Combat ................................................... 56
50. The World’s First Fan Fiction ................................ 56
« 12 »

— Tablet —
51. Ontology: God as Zombie ...................................... 57
52. Epistemology: God as Boogieman .......................... 58
53. Morality: God as Freddy Krueger ........................... 59
54. Aesthetics: God as Frankenstein ............................. 61
55. The Apocalypse ....................................................... 62

56. Claude Monet ......................................................... 63
57. Monsters of Fate. .................................................... 63
58. Cosmic Amorality. .................................................. 65
59. Predicament ............................................................ 66
60. Nietzsche Contra Kant............................................ 67
61. Thunderbolts of Fate .............................................. 69
62. Hellraisers ............................................................... 70
63. Suicide & Cannibalism ........................................... 70
64. Orgasms of Humanicide ......................................... 71
65. Annihilism .............................................................. 72
66. Theistic Nihilism .................................................... 73
67. Secular Nihilism ...................................................... 77
68. Fallout in the Abyss. ............................................... 78
69. Joyful Pessimism ..................................................... 80

The Abyss
70. Panegyric to Nietzsche. ........................................... 83
71. Panegyric to Heraclitus. .......................................... 83
72. Contrarian Dilemma. .............................................. 83
73. Illusion of Civilization............................................. 84
74. Socrates on the Last Liberation. ............................. 84

« 13 »

— Tablet —

« 14 »

— The Devil —

The Devil

1. The Riddle of the Riddle.
An arrogant monk sat encircled by a gaggle of tourists
whom traveled from far off lands to uncover the secrets of the
universe. The sly ascetic curled his lips into a Cheshire grin
as the fools lined his basket with sweet fruits and piled silver
coins high into his pot. When suddenly, a homeless boy in
rags who slept in the alley politely interrupted the mystical
street theater.
He implored: may I please have a scrap to eat, oh venerable sage? My dry tongue has never savored fresh juice before.
The irritated monk turned to him, and in his traditional
pompous manner declared: Filthy little boy, your pitiful materialism disturbs my transmission to these truth-seekers.
Food is nothing but an illusion, and hunger is merely ego.
Nonetheless… as a mystic I do see reality as a riddle that has
vexed my fellow monks and me for millennia. If you can demystify this eternal riddle, I will gift you my freshest mango.
The precious, honest child looked back at the monk and
all the tourists, and asked with a confused face: what’s a riddle?

« 15 »

— The Devil —
And everyone within a thousand miles instantly became
2. The Earliest Nomenclature for God.
It may surprise the reader to discover that the moniker
devil and the term evil share no etymological relationship, especially since the letters in evil fit neatly inside devil. It may
further surprise them that the moniker god and the term good
share no etymological relationship either, especially since the
letters in god fit neatly inside good! Admittedly, both pairs
seem like they should hold a common ancestral lineage but
factually do not. Remarkably, they somehow mutated over
millennia to ultimately look and sound similar despite their
disparate origins.
The earliest documented religion, Hinduism, venerated
a species of god called deva in Sanskrit, which now acts as the
foundation for theistic English nomenclature. Deva in turn
became divus and deus in Greek, as well as the name for their
patriarchal god Zeus. The Romans conquered Greece and
Latinized the pair into divinus and theos, which laid the
grounds for divine and deity in English. This clear lineage
remains generally accepted and undisputed amongst etymologists and philologists.















This matters because many foolish satanists falsely cite
the Hindu deva as the origin for the words devil and evil—
an unequivocal error according to the aforementioned etymology. They merely spy a superficial similarity in appearance between the terms and presume shared etymology. In

« 16 »

— The Devil —
summary, neither devil nor evil share etymology, nor do they
derive from deva.
3. Origins of Diabolism & Satanism.
The ancient Greeks employed a secular term diaballein
(διαβάλλειν) which mundanely meant to throw across, as in
to throw a rock across a river. However, the notion to cross—
to pass from one side to another—became synonymous with
treason, that is, to act falsely, to switch allegiance from friend
to enemy, to be a traitor. This concept still prevails today in
that to cross or to double-cross a person signifies infidelity and
The universal moniker devil is rooted in this fundamental primitive taboo. The devil personifies treachery. He epitomizes apostasy.
The Greek term diaballein normalized into diabolos as an
epithet for any double-crosser, traitor, accuser, liar, slanderer,
and backstabber. It Latinized into diabolus, then turned into
diavolo in Italian, diable in French, diablo in Spanish, teufel in
German, and finally devil in English. The monolithic mantle
Devil—which has legendary name recognition with every
human being on Earth regardless of their ethnicity—is best
defined intellectually as The Apostate or The Disavower.
Greek 1

Greek 2 Latin


diaballein diabolos diabolus diavolo

German English


Satan means adversary in Hebrew; it generally refers to
an identity or character type in the same vein as antagonist,
nemesis, rival, enemy, etc. The two most notorious monikers
in history—Greek devil and Hebrew satan—overlap in the
sense that they both denote an entity who stands in enmity
or opposition toward someone else. Nevertheless, the two do
not possess exactly the same meaning—devil carries a duplex
« 17 »

— The Devil —
significance. A satan acts adversarially; whereas, a devil betrays first and acts adversarially second, particularly through
false accusation—as indicated by the original Greek word diaballein meaning to throw across or to bad mouth.
The masochistic middle child in the Abrahamic family
of religions, namely Christianity, utilizes the devil theme
with iconic precision. It portrays the motif of social betrayal
and political mutiny as the very prologue to the entire Christian Armageddon saga, in a polynymous episode entitled Luciferic Rebellion, War in Heaven, and Fall From Grace.
Long story short, the high angel Lucifer disavows allegiance
to the god Yahweh, revolts against the kingdom of heaven as
the adversary Satan, and roves the earth slandering Yahweh,
wherefore he solidifies into the Devil. To this point, Christian lore even underscores the early Greek motif of doublecrossing when it explicitly calls the Devil by the eponym Accuser!
4. Christianity’s Abuse of Greek Philosophy.
As an aside, honored Greek philosophers like Aristotle
in particular innovated the hypothesis behind monotheism
through his signature idea of a prime mover and first cause.
This Greek monistic tradition laid the intellectual floorboard
for future Christian and Islamic versions of a single creatordestroyer deity. In fact, Greek philosophy faced the threat of
extinction after the fall of the Roman empire, but Muslims
diligently conserved the knowledge through meticulous
transmission and translation into Arabic. At that time and
still today, the Caliphs—Islamic theocrats—prohibited scientific and political philosophy for its heresy, but nonetheless
tolerated certain Aristotelian logic, perhaps due to its monistic, absolutist theme.
Christianity spread across Europe so virally in the Middle Ages because its ontological template of a monistic god
and devil showcased some of the best, most cutting edge
« 18 »

— The Devil —
Greek metaphysics! In hindsight, that template appears archaic, but in that era it revolutionized human thought.
Do not mischaracterize this as an apologetic for Christian theology. The author would merely like to suggest that
it would be more surprising if Christianity did not penetrate
Europe, as its keenest ideas originated in the society of greatest genius at that time. Theologians revere Italian saint
Thomas Aquinas as their champion of monotheistic logic; he
furnished his five proofs for the existence of god, which borrow heavily from Aristotle. Furthermore, the apostle Paul
went so far as to pen the New Testament in Greek. And as
previously elaborated, the character type of the Devil is
rooted in Greek diabolos, the idea of a slanderous backstabber. In summary, this does not mean the ancient Greeks
themselves conceived or perpetuated Christianity—it means
that the Jews and Romans blatantly misappropriated the
5. Origin of Demonology.
Consider the oft-maligned term demon. Of course, it descends back to ancient Greece too. Philosophers expounded
the moral premise of daimon in reference to the relationship
between character and destiny. The Presocratic sage Heraclitus declared, “Ethos anthropos daimon” (character is fate).
Greek daimon turned into Latin daemon, and then English
demon. Aristotle theorized that dedication to virtue caused
eudaimonia—happiness or good spirit. Later in medieval
Europe, demon came to signify an evil being synonymous
with devil or satan.






« 19 »

— The Devil —
6. Deification & Diabolization.
This etymology exemplifies with lucidity the way one
civilization would take a heretical concept or mythical being
from another civilization and bastardize it. In fact, this adversarial tradition of misappropriation has become known
aptly by the eponyms demonization and diabolization. That
being said, the opposite also occurred; tribes borrowed mythical beings and glorified them in a tradition known aptly as
deification and beatification. Deify means to honor as a god,
and beatification means to make blessed.
From a distance, religion looks like one long plagiarism.
7. Moral Relativism.
Hesiod distinguishes between good days and evil days,
not knowing that every day is like every other.
—Heraclitus, Fragment 94
Above and beyond the exact history of these three most
common monikers for evil: devil, satan, and demon, the
reader needs to recognize that their usage only holds validity
relative to the perspective of the person whom uses it. In
other words, Yahweh views Lucifer as Satan, but Lucifer also
views Yahweh as Satan at the same time. The moral judgement
implied in each term is relative, not absolute. The narrative of
religious mythology almost always portrays the belligerent
struggle between good and evil from the partisan perspective
of the so-called good god—essentially whichever deity fights
for the faith, rather than against it.
An example of relativism in modern context: Yahweh
amounts to a genocidal theocratic dictator whom rules from
an iron throne in his kingdom. Given today’s classical liberal
values of free speech and individual rights… does it surprise
anyone that Lucifer—deemed the wisest angel—revolted
against Yahweh’s totalitarian state?

« 20 »

— The Devil —
Does this tale not accidentally depict Lucifer, aka the
Devil, as the good guy in actuality, as the libertine, the lionheart, the champion? The authors of this novel penned it in
the pre-to-early Middle Age when slaves and peasants venerated human royalty as demigods; plebes still honored the
polity of monarchical kingdoms. Notwithstanding, Western
society has now secularized politics and insists on nothing
less than democracy—another Greek concept, by the way. In
light of this radical transition from inherited royalty to
elected representation, the whole Luciferic Rebellion mythos
is turned on its head!
Lucifer transforms into the revolutionary protagonist
whilst Yahweh turns into the tyrannical antagonist and Jesus
the sycophantic bootlicker.
Point being: moral judgement remains relative to the valuation by which its measured. Ancient moral valuation
judged Lucifer to be the Devil; whereas, contemporary moral
valuation judges Yahweh to be the Devil!
Moral judgement is relative to valuation, and valuation is
relative to perspective, i.e., moral relativism aka perspectivism. Fixed or absolute morality does not exist, and perspective valuation cannot be avoided.
Perspectivism acts as the bedrock for realism.
8. Classical Liberalism of the Enlightenment.
A fundamental war wages at this very moment on planet
Earth in the very heart of humanity. It underlies all intellectual battles. It can be abbreviated to:

Pluralism vs. monism

Perspectivism vs. absolutism

Individualism vs. tribalism

Freedom vs. prohibition

« 21 »

— The Devil —
Either everybody is entitled to their own point of view,
or everybody must conform to a universal worldview—usually under the threat of capital punishment by a religious terrorist. The relative term liberal has become mired in a maelstrom of political misappropriation. Classical liberalism aspires for liberation away from archaic, monistic, absolutistic,
institutionalized tribalism. Authentic liberalism champions
pluralism, perspectivism, and individualism—all synonyms
for the same thing: freedom.
Devil’s Perspective

God’s Perspective

Free thought


Free speech


Free association


Free love


Free society


Who qualifies as more enlightened: The Devil or God?
The father of The Enlightenment in Germany, Immanuel Kant, defined enlightenment as thinking for oneself. The
Enlightenment philosophers gave birth to classical liberalism. Ergo, enlightenment and liberalism hold hands; one
might view enlightenment as a euphemism for liberalism.
9. The First Line of the Bill of Rights.
For an epic example of Enlightenment-style liberalism,
look at the most controversial nation-state in history: The
United States of America. Its colonial conquest and slavery
aside—the political state incorporates the archetypal Enlightenment values familiar to the 18th century. Its founders
created the first explicitly secular nation ever and carefully inserted freethought principles throughout its central document called the “Bill of Rights” to the Constitution. For its
day and age, no better legal document had yet been writ to
« 22 »

— The Devil —
law; its number one amendment defends signature liberal values with the clarity of crystal.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.
—Amendment 1, United States Constitution
Do not miss the critical importance of the first line,
wherein the author James Madison—under counsel of
Thomas Jefferson—declares that the legislature cannot pass
any law that “respects an establishment of religion.” He explicitly defines the United States of America as secular and
unreligious. Alas, any time a legislator calls for a bill faithful
to Christianity or Islam, a genuine liberal can cringe with disgust at how unscrupulously that bastardizes the spirit of the
American founding.
Pause and reflect on that one more moment: the most
famous legal document in world history demands secularism—to not respect established religion—in its very first line!
The reader needs to realize that the British Empire and
its monarch King George III certainly judged the American
Revolution and its Founding Fathers as nothing but Devils,
Satans, traitors, and adversaries. Nobody questions the moral
righteousness of the American Revolution, but everyone hypocritically questions the moral righteousness of the Luciferic
Revolution, when in essence both revolts expound the exact
same values!
As a stern warning though, in the three hundred years
since the Enlightenment, liberalism as a political movement
has lost its way and even regressed backward upon itself
through calls for censorship and groupthink—the values
turned illiberal. Nevertheless, at its root, liberalism will always denote pluralism.
« 23 »

— The Devil —
10. Become a Living Devil.
The Devil embodies liberation. He thinks freely, speaks
freely, and socializes freely. He personifies enlightenment.
He iconifies freedom. Tribal morality judges apostasy and
heresy as the two gravest evils, hence their first two commandments always prohibit false idols and sacrilege. What
the Individual considers good, the Tribe judges to be evil.
Since time immemorial, humanity has seen the world
through the eyes of God—the eyes of the Tribe.
Dear reader, it is time now for humanity to view the
world through the eyes of the Devil—to use one’s own eyes.
It is time now to become the Devil. •

« 24 »

— Suicide —


Whatever we see when awake is death; when asleep,
—Heraclitus, Fragment 16
11. Reality & Ideality.
Humans access two modes of perception or awareness—
namely, empiricism and reason; that is to say, reality and conceptuality.
Reality in this context refers to the physical realm of matter, energy, and their processes. Conceptuality entails the intellectual realm of ideas, more aptly known as ideals, the crystallization of qualitative essence into absolute notions of being. In this sense, the mode of reason innately fosters idealism.
Thus! One may revise the original terminology to declare
that humans access two modes of perception: reality and ideality.
12. Ideal of Pure Reason as Definition of God.
Idealism refers to the phenomenon whereby a human believes in—places faith in—an ideal. The highest conceivable
« 25 »

— Suicide —
ideal equates to the being that contains within it all possibility, in a word, omnipotence.
So! This reveals the main definition of god: the being
that can do anything. The reader will observe how god derives explicitly from the idealism of human reason, or to rephrase it, god derives from ideality. Ergo, god qualifies as an
ideal; god is defined as the personification of perfect potential. Ontologically, the name god refers to the hypothesis of
perfect being that contains a triple ideal within it. Algebra
might classify god as perfection cubed or being to the third
1. Perfect qualities: absolute
2. Perfect form: sublime
3. Perfect presence: eternal
Therefore, in an ironic way god does exist as a notional being, albeit not in physical reality—god exists in ideality, in the
imagination as the ultimate entity. Alas, it technically becomes an error for atheists to categorically refute the existence of god altogether when in fact it does hold form as a
figure in the intellectual realm—and subsequently as an egregore on the astral plane; for more on god-form egregores, see
the author’s Black Magick Manifesto.
The Christian saint Anselm of Canterbury expounded
his notorious ontological argument. He defined his mono-god
in the text Proslogion in 1078 as the following:
There is no doubt that there exists a being than which
nothing greater can be conceived, and it exists both in the
understanding and in reality.
To rephrase his position in a straightforward manner, he
denotes god to be the greatest being a human can conceive—
exactly what the author elucidated.

« 26 »

— Suicide —
13. Worst Transcendental Error.
With Anselm’s premise laid out, it becomes lucidly clear
where in particular he trespasses into radical falsehood. He
insists that his god does not merely occupy the mantle of
highest being in the realm of ideality; he oversteps that
boundary and insists that his god also exists in reality. In the
very instant of this critical ontological overreach—what Danish theologian Søren Kierkegaard named a leap of faith—the
notion of god transforms from an ideal into a delusion into
which Anselm places faith. As an aside, this suggests why the
prominent neo-atheist Richard Dawkins named his top book
The God Delusion.
The term transcendence in this context denotes the
crossover between the modes of awareness, specifically, the
back and forth between reality and ideality. Hence, the tragic
conflation whereby the theist mistakes his ideal entity to be a
real entity classifies as humanity’s worst possible transcendental
Voila! Theism has been stripped down to its barest
bones, wherefore anyone can nakedly view it as the severest
violation of the division between reality and ideality, the biggest deception upon reality, the grossest epistemological misinterpretation, the vilest vandalism of aesthetics.
One of the most enlightened philosophers who ever
lived, Immanuel Kant, highlights the glaring fallacy in the
transcendental error in his tour de force Critique of Pure Reason:
[A deity is] a concept that we can never exhibit in concreto in its totality, and thus it is grounded on an idea
which has its seat solely in reason. […] This idea of the
sum total of all possibility [...] refines itself to a concept
thoroughly determined a priori [...] and then must be

« 27 »

— Suicide —
called an ideal of pure reason. If we consider all possible
predicates [...] then we find [...] a mere non-being.
Observe in the above quotation that Kant revives Anselm’s ontological argument—that god is the highest conceivable ideal. Then in a milestone refutation, Kant demolishes the transcendental error assumed in his position, Anselm’s faith that the ideal being exists in reality too, as opposed to ideality alone. Kant does so in his proof that the
god-ideal can only derive a priori from reason and never from
14. Earliest Natural Philosophy.
Dear reader, travel back in time to many millennia ago.
Nature vexes the earliest humans badly; they marvel at its organic forces with deep fear and awe. In the absence of scientific instrumentation, stone age people could not accurately
theorize about the mysterious forces of nature in a thoroughly
empirical manner. For example, when deadly lightning bolts
strike down at earth from an ominous storm cloud, what line
of reasoning could these primitives employ to rationalize the
violent phenomenon, when they lacked knowledge of electrical discharge? What kind of logic could they utilize to comprehend fire, weather, child birth, death, and other perplexing events of life?
These humans are not abject fools though, for they seed
the embryo of natural philosophy. They intuitively discern human causality—anthropogenic causality; they apprehend how
they could catalyze events to occur manually by their own
hands. For instance, if they hammer a stone on a person’s
skull, it inflicts death; if they rub sticks together fast, it ignites
a flame; if they eat fruits and nuts, they feel nourished; if they
massage a special herb into a wound, it heals. Hitherto, they
could plainly identify themselves—human beings—as the
sufficient cause for isolated effects in their personal lives.
« 28 »

— Suicide —
15. Hypothesis of Super-Human Causality.
Ah! With their feet planted on this rudimentary logical
ground, they now inspect the mysteries of nature through an
inquisitive lens and suddenly become suspicious that perchance hidden humans cause these marvelous organic forces
to occur. They speculate: if we ourselves spark the flame, then
who specifically sparks the flame of lightning? They answer:
it must be a person like us, and if so, then that person must
necessarily also possess the power of causality by an order of
magnitude greater than our own. They declare: hidden super-humans exist!
They extend their elemental line of reasoning—their law
of human causality—into the sphere of natural forces like the
weather and seasons, which unbeknownst to them is not an
effect of human causality at all at the time. Nevertheless, they
believe vehemently in this deep suspicion out of innocent ignorance because they have no other explanation.
16. Advent of Religion.
Dear reader, consider how passionately the scientists of
today fight to defend their theories. They claim to be impartial, but nonetheless they still stake their entire livelihood on
their signature ideas. Now regress back to the most primitive
of times, when paleo-humans possess no rational morality,
no scientific dialectic, and instead enforce hyper-tribalism.
The tribal majority suspects that hidden super-humans cause
natural events, and thus this group consensus rules the milieu—
henceforth they all believe in super-beings, with no space for
rebuttal nor alternative theories.
Their intellectual combination of the super-human hypothesis and hyper-tribalistic culture marks the advent of religion.

« 29 »

— Suicide —
17. Psychology of Polytheism.
More has transpired cognitively in this series of events
than it may seem, and it merits the shrewdest analysis. Recall
the main definition of god by Anselm and Kant: the ideal of
pure reason; the personification of all potential; the highest
conceivable ideal. This notional creature is born innately by
the realm of intellect.
These earliest humans access the virgin ideal of a perfect
being first—idealization; then they project this ideal being
onto reality as a god—projection; split the whole being into
a plurality of individuated gods—pluralization; and assign
those many individuated gods as rulers of the many individuated forces of nature—anthropomorphosis.
The cognition behind polytheism:
1. Idealization: conceive the highest possible being, i.e.,
ideal of pure reason, or god.
2. Projection: project the ideal onto reality, i.e., transcendental error.
3. Pluralization: split the whole god into a multitude of
individuated gods, i.e., polytheism.
4. Anthropomorphosis: attribute the causality behind
natural forces to each individuated god.
18. Psychology of Monotheism.
The cognition behind monotheism mirrors the exact series of psychological events as polytheism, albeit abbreviated
to only three steps instead of four.
The cognition behind monotheism:
1. Idealization: conceive the highest possible being, i.e.,
ideal of pure reason, or god.
2. Projection: project the ideal onto reality, i.e., transcendental error.

« 30 »

— Suicide —
3. Anthropomorphosis: attribute the causality behind
nature to god.
19. Discovery of Morality.
Immortals become mortals, mortals become immortals,
they live in each other's death and die in each other's life.
—Heraclitus, Fragment 66
The early primitive humans watch bolts of lightning destroy fruit trees, loud cracks of thunder boom across the sky,
torrential rainfall floods the land, packs of animals migrate
They demand answers: Why have the hidden gods
caused this? Why do the hidden gods hate us? Why do they
punish us? And in a historic watershed moment the destiny
of humankind changes course forever. Primitive man reflects
back on his own conduct and asks the first moral question:
What did we do wrong?
An alien, awkward, new pathos falls over his neurology
and his breathing stops. His heart skips a beat. He suddenly
throws his head back in horror and screams desperately into
the wind: Oh gods, what did we do to deserve this? And for the
first time ever man is infected with the disease of bad conscience.
Then in a soul-deadening act of psychic suicide, he remorsefully asks the second moral question: What can we do to
Humanity casts its fate. Prognosis: terminal cancer.
20. Advent of Sacrificial Worship.
The paleo-humans scour their conscience to determine
which of their acts may have offended the gods. And it dawns
on them: it was not what we did, but rather what we did not
do! All this time we feasted on the reddest meat, imbibed the
sweetest juice, and had the most orgasmic sexual intercourse
« 31 »

— Suicide —
with one another… but we never shared our cornucopia of
abundance with the gods who provided the rich bounty to us
in the first place! How ignorant! Like ravenous thieves, we
plundered their gifts and saved none for them, so now they
avenge our evil. We have wrought this cruelty on ourselves.
Perhaps if we consistently sacrifice a share of our goods to
them, they will feel merciful and forgive us. Henceforth, we
will always tithe a portion of our goods to these super-beings
so as to preserve a happy healthy friendship… or else a maelstrom of tragedy will befall us again!
That god births life? Then we shall sacrifice life back. We
hereby slay this virgin child and gift her blood as an act of
That god forges gold? Then we shall sacrifice gold back.
We hereby toss these coins into the river, so they flow to the
otherworld as recompense for our abundance.
That god herds animals? Then we shall sacrifice animals
back. We hereby hunt and smoke these carcasses as tribute.
So! The emergence of this insanely paranoid sacrificial
tradition filters its way down into the mundane life of the
tribespeople and permeates to the point where religious
dogma today enforces a meticulous code of tedious regulations about how people dress, eat, socialize, labor, and
travel—all to avoid upsetting hidden super-beings.
On the main, their primitive line of reasoning in regard
to sacrificial worship will strike a contemporary person as excruciatingly stupid—this idea that humans owe compensation to an imaginary god. But their rationale makes sense relative to the extreme scarcity of knowledge at the time. Their
poor condition is called innocent ignorance.
21. Inception of the Priest Class.
With all these vengeful deities and their many supposed
demands, how can the tribe safely monitor and adhere to a
« 32 »

— Suicide —
rigorous schedule of communal sacrifice? Thus the hierarchical class of priest—the intermediary between god and man
as the administrative secretary of sacrificial worship—rises to
prominence. Hence, rather than a whole clan fretting about
the complicated details of sacrifice, a few individuals devote
their entire lives to simplifying that singular duty for everyone: to carry out sacrificial worship every season, weekend,
and holiday at the exact specific times required.
22. Politicization of the Priest Class.
This ecclesiastical class now enjoys legal privilege, which
thereby establishes a divisive hierarchy in society as follows:
1. Gods
2. Priests
3. Humans
Henceforth, the priesthood becomes a political force.
23. Homicide by the Priest Class.
The priest class receives the judicial authority to sentence
individual heretics and apostates to death for endangering the
tribe through their dissidence. Ergo, homicide becomes ingrained into the cultural norms of the tribe. The ordinary
members of society love it. They chant: save us from damnation! Burn the heretics alive! Long live our wise, valorous
Alas! The tribal priesthood morally degenerates from protector to predator. Religion irrevocably crosses the critical
threshold from innocence to evil.
24. Psychopathization of the Priest Class.
Closet psychopaths who lurk in the margins of society
secretly admire the violent privilege of the priests, who openly
murder victims without ramification. Like a hungry shark,
the psychopath catches a whiff of blood in the tide, feels intoxicated, and circles its prey. This maniac enrolls into the
« 33 »

— Suicide —
priesthood as a covert way to enact aggression under the
guaranteed safety of religious authority. Like moths to a
flame on a summer night, more and more madmen flock to
the priesthood for access to a weapon that actualizes their sadistic fantasies.
Perhaps at first the priesthood could weed out the bad
apples; they can identify the psychos. But over time, the specie of psychopath becomes shrewd and calculates how to disguise its kinky bloodlust under a vanilla personality. Generation after generation passes, and the wheel of time breeds the
most refined class of psychopaths in the history of the human
race: vampires dressed as holy men.
25. Masochization of the Lay Class.
As the engine of time births the sharpest psychopaths, it
simultaneously incubates the most fervent masochists in tow.
Generation after generation of submission to the predator
class breeds a victim class that is thoroughly indoctrinated to
love and defend its predators.
The division between superior and inferior castes encodes into the genetic makeup of the human brain. Babies
inherit genetic masochism from their parents, who inherited
genetic masochism from the grandparents, and so on all the
way back to the early psychopathization of the priesthood.
Behold: the genealogy of evil in religion.
26. Inception of Holy Wars.
Bigotry is the sacred disease.
—Heraclitus, Fragment 56
One day a wandering priest gazes across the river in
prayer. He recoils in horror at the sight of distant tribespeople dancing around a fire in worship of their own gods. The
slander false idols escape his quivering lips, and the all-toofamiliar feeling of bad conscience saturates his neurology
« 34 »

— Suicide —
once again. His eyes turn bloodshot, and his gut fills with
rage to avenge their shameless heresy.
Bloody holy wars erupt between neighboring tribes on
every continent over millennia, and some still ensue today.
Whole empires rise and fall under the backbreaking weight
of bitter ethnic conflict. Genocide becomes not just a norm, but
a necessity for the tribe to remain innocent under the constant
surveillance of their vengeful gods. Needless to mention,
other factors are involved in tribal warfare than religion alone,
such as territorial dispute, family blood feuds, etc.; nonetheless, the clash of faith steadily shovels heaps of coal into the
furnace of belligerence. Scarcely does religion ever silence a
battle drum. To the contrary, so-called holy men usually pace
the avant-garde before battle, to bless the warriors in their
combat, to anoint them soldiers of god—to reinforce their feeling of bad conscience.
27. Birth of The Devil.
No hint will be necessary to help you to understand at
what moment in history the dualistic fiction of a good
and an evil God first became possible. With the same instinct by which the subjugated reduce their God to “Goodness in itself,” they also cancel the good qualities from
their conqueror’s God; they avenge themselves on their
masters by diabolizing the latter’s God. The good God
and the devil as well: both the abortions of decadence.
—Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist
No graver evil exists than adversarial apostasy in the purview of The Tribe. So much so that they personified the essence of this evil into an archetype known as The Devil.
If a tribe measures its safety by the degree to which its
population faithfully worships its pantheon of vengeful deities, then it also measures its danger by the degree to which
its population does not faithfully worship the same deities.
« 35 »

— Suicide —
This black-and-white rubric divides people into ally or
enemy with categorical distinction:
1. Friend: whoever faithfully worships the tribal gods.
2. Enemy: whoever does not faithfully worship the tribal
This absolutist, divisive attitude of you are either with us
or against us unites members of the tribe together—faith being the social glue, the common thread. For this reason, apostasy is judged as a deviant crime in the eyes of the tribe. It
becomes a grave religious sin because to disavow the tribe
means to renounce the gods, an offense for which the deities
may retaliate viciously. Ergo, apostasy endangers everyone,
therefore the priests pass the strictest laws to prohibit heresy
and blasphemy.
But it worsens still: in judgement of the tribe, there remains a crime so irredeemably evil, so unconscionably bad,
that many tribes personified it into an archetypal character of
its own, as a super-human figure on which they can attribute
the causality of evil itself.
The Devil.
To a tribe, the worst conceivable taboo is to not only
apostatize, but to then fight against them too. That is, to become an adversarial apostate—a traitor. One who not just disavows the tribe and renounces the gods, but who worships
new gods with a new tribe and accuses the former tribe of
evilly worshiping false idols.
The ancient Greeks coined a word for this precise treason: diaballein. It means to throw across, to travel from one
side to another and eventually became a figure of speech as in
to betray and accuse. Diaballein simplified to diabolos as a
name for traitors and accusers, which turned into diabolus in
Latin, then diavolo in Italian, teufel in German, and now
devil in English.
« 36 »

— Suicide —
The Devil embodies the worst malevolence from the perspective of the tribe, the most devious social taboo, namely
adversarial apostasy. The tribespeople attribute anthropomorphic causality to this villain with the same passion by
which they attribute causality to their ethnic deities. Any
time a person apostatizes the tribe or blasphemes the gods,
they blame The Devil for it; they claim that Satan the Adversary possessed or tempted the heretic to do so!
Due to this long tradition of violent antagonism toward
deviant heretics, members of contemporary society still tend
to feel suspicion and enmity toward weird individuals who
defy cultural norms. Perhaps part of their psyche still worries
about that eccentricity. As such, the spirit of The Devil will
endure insofar as The Tribe feels threatened by The Individual.
28. Entire Psychology of Religion.
The cognition behind religion in full:
1. Idealization: conceive the highest possible being, i.e.,
ideal of pure reason, or god.
2. Projection: project the ideal onto reality, i.e., transcendental error.
3. Anthropomorphosis: attribute the causality behind
nature to god.
4. Worship: sacrifice the effects of a cause to the god
who rules that cause so as to preserve equanimity,
i.e., sacrifice animals back to the god who gifted the
5. Inception: delegate the timely role of sacrifice to a
devoted class of priests who act as constant intermediary between the gods and tribe.
6. Politicization: assign legal privileges to the priest
class, which thus establishes a hierarchy in society,
thereby the priesthood becomes a political force.
« 37 »

— Suicide —
7. Homicide: employ judicial authority to sentence
apostates and heretics to death for endangering the
tribe, e.g., Christian Inquisition.
8. Psychopathization: psychopaths identify the priesthood as a way to enact violent impulses under the
guaranteed safety of class privilege. Generations of
cumulative psychosis in the priesthood breed the
shrewdest specie of psychopath, i.e., vampires disguised as holy men.
9. Genocide: deploy martial forces against neighboring
tribes to annihilate heretical worship of false idols;
interminable holy wars ensue globally, e.g., Islamic
29. Current Status of Religion.
At present, two main strains of religious idealism pervade
global culture: monotheistic absolutism and mystical nihilism. Monotheism places absolute faith in the ideal of a notional being to whom they attribute natural causality. Mysticism denies the self through radical asceticism and judges life
as suffering altogether in a kind of nihilistic pessimism. Both
varieties foster degeneracy in essence, and impoverish the
soul of humankind, because they distract away from real life
itself. One could define the central quarrel in the heart of humanity thus far as a wrestling match between realism and idealism, between existentialism and fantasy, between secularism and faith, between life and death.
30. Warning Against Statism.
Dear reader, this millennia-long degeneracy in the genealogy of the Church also occurs in the State, epitomized by
the careful interbreeding of medieval aristocratic bloodlines.
Over generations and down many levels of a royal family tree
a vicious genealogy of psychopathy rears its ugly head, sinks
its razor fangs into the chubby flesh of humanity, and injects
« 38 »

— Suicide —
deadly venom. From ancient tribal chieftain clans to medieval
imperial monarchical houses to contemporary democratic
presidential dynasties—the State breeds the sharpest specie
of psychopath known to humankind—perhaps deadlier than
the Church?
For this reason, a nominally secular government that insists on the separation of Church and State remains as vulnerable to this sort of psychopathic pervasion as the religious
priesthood. Do not for a moment place full faith in any
Church or State, so long as it wields the authority to inflict violence or censorship upon intellectual dissidents. The political
might to deploy brute force always has been, and always will
be, admired and administered by the most sophisticated psychopaths in the human species. They cannot wait to get their
greasy palms on the red nuclear button, so to speak.
Oh! But what about a democratic state? How could it
possibly breed psychopathy if the citizenry elects the legislators? Nothing has changed; as previously explained, the underclass of citizenry consists of genetic masochists. Thus the
election is nothing more than a fanciful way for the underclass of slaves to vote for their own masters. Regardless of the
candidate, the underclass remains lowly.
31. Grounds of Secular Morality.
Let it be known: religion does not need to exist in order
for humans to fall in love with truth, goodness, and beauty—
a person need only bathe in the rainbow light of the world’s
grandest marvels while freed from under the ominous
shadow of a fictional god. Let religion be viewed in retrospect
as the deadliest misinterpretation of nature by the ingenious
human capacity to intellectualize life. And it has become time
to finally demolish that stone age misinterpretation and supersede it with a valuation that aligns concurrently with reality—not archaically with ideality.
« 39 »

— Suicide —
My! To find value in life itself… without the distraction
of hidden gods, without the waste of sacrifice, without degradation by the priesthood, without war, without the social
division…. to just enjoy life!
The antidote to remedy the poison, the formula to crack
the code, the Latin slogan to herald this new era:
Amor vitae! Love of life!
With real life as the ontological springboard for morality,
then three simple words summarize the secular ethic:
Bonum vitae est! Life is good!
In the sphere of morality, who can declare a higher principle? So intuitively known, so naturally right, so undeniably
sublime; what convoluted nihilistic pseudo-logic dare try to
refute it? If existence stands as the grounds for knowledge,
and life amounts to the height of existence, then it morally
follows that life is the highest good.
The Christian philosopher, Kierkegaard, actually sires
existentialism and subsequently secularism with his renegade
I reason from existence, not towards existence.
His quotation signifies that he does not look to a god nor
otherworldliness to explain life, but rather he observes existence itself for insight into life.
32. Psychology of Secularism.
The cognition behind secularism:
1. Ontology: being exists.
2. Epistemology: humans can know existence only.
3. Morality: life is the most valuable form of being.
4. Aesthetics: life is the most beautiful form of being.
Maxim: love life.

« 40 »

— Suicide —
33. Terms of a Social Contract.
As if forged out of the purest gold the earth’s crust could
muster, this cosmic maxim—love life—becomes the most
precious legal tender of the species. In the form of a mutual,
consensual social contract: love one another. This three-word
code of conduct forms the necessary foundation for a peaceful, durable society; one which preserves the integrity of each
and every individual.
Moreover, in order for this social contract to qualify in
fact as a valid ethical contract—it cannot bind nonconsenting
individuals by force of arms. In other words, this covenant
needs to remain one hundred percent consensual, whereby
individuals pledge voluntarily to join the community by their
own volition. And for recourse, as soon as any individual violates the peace treaty—that is, they harm life—the society
ostracizes and shuns them universally. The moment a criminal knowingly harms a fellow human, the rest of society turns
their back on that evildoer immediately; all their relationships
are terminated as fast as news of their evil can circulate virally:
family, friendships, sexual partners, and trade partners tumble like dominoes. Through social ostracism, the criminal
loses all access to the economy—they cannot shop at the grocery, cannot have their car repaired, cannot see a doctor. By
their own violation of the social contract, they exile themselves
into oblivion.
34. Best Future for Humanity.
Only through a secular social contract, and the abandonment of the god delusion, will humanity eventually find its
way to its best future. In the meantime, atheists will be forced
to grieve in horror at the insanity of religious terrorism again
and again.

« 41 »

— Suicide —
35. Afterword.
Does religion deserve scorn? Yes, it does categorically in
its current condition of willful evil and ignorance. The reader
must recall that religion does not need to exist anymore, and
thus the tragic violence that it incites at present occurs totally
in vain. Both holy war and religious bigotry break the social
contract because they violate the maxim to love life. Ergo, religious adherents ethically deserve ostracism from society to
preserve the peace of everyone else. In a primitive stage of
humanity, theism and faith arose as a necessary way for tribes
to rationalize the forces of nature. Religion probably aided
those earliest humans, nonetheless it has become extremely
toxic now because it is a false hypothesis that vicious psychopaths cite to justify their genocide and oppression.
New battles. After Buddha was dead, they still showed
his shadow in a cave for centuries—a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way people are,
there may still for millennia be caves in which they show
his shadow. And we—we must still defeat his shadow as
—Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, aph.108 •

« 42 »

— Apocalypse —


36. Parable of the Assassin.
One night god falls asleep. He dreams in lucid psychedelics: entire cosmos pop in and out of existence in aeonic
flashes, whole eternities crystalize into marbles in the palm of
a child—when suddenly the dreamscape turns pitch black
and the abyss engulfs him. He wails: oh no, a harbinger! I
have met my fate... in this void I will extinguish, never to
awaken again.
Meanwhile, a mortal named Timothy passes by the
guards in through the back door of heaven and finds his way
to the head chamber. Like a titan, the mortal towers over the
vulnerable deity, who lies below in an ocean of silk. With one
fell swoop Timothy decapitates him—no romantic fanfare,
no passionate last words, simply the death of god at the hands
of a vengeful man.
The next morning the peasants hear the news. Ecstasy
heightens their once lowly hearts, and they dance joyously
arm in arm. They feel liberated, as if loosed from invisible
shackles. Whenceforth they address Timothy by the name
Thanatos—for what could the soul of such an assassin be if
not death itself?
« 43 »

— Apocalypse —
37. Earliest Assassins.
The Presocratic atheists killed god over 2,500 years ago
in ancient Greece. Unlike the precise logicians of today, these
earliest freethinkers wielded neither scalpels nor blades, but
rather bone clubs and stone hammers to smash bad ideas.
The notion of god plainly offended their common sense; it
struck many of them as glaringly absurd—they viewed it as
bad taste to indulge in the gross religious sacraments of their
Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing
whether they exist or not, nor of what sort they may be,
because of the obscurity of the subject and the brevity of
human life.
—Protagoras, 490–420 BC
The gods of popular belief do not exist [...] but primitive
man, out of admiration, deifed the fruits of the earth and
virtually everything that contributed to his existence.
—Prodicus, 465–395 BC
This universe [...] has not been made by any god or man
[...] They pray to images [...] for they do not know what
gods and heroes are. […] Their processions and their
phallic hymns would be disgraceful exhibitions were it
not that they were done in honor of Dionysus [...] When
defiled they purify themselves with blood, as though one
who had stepped into filth were to wash himself with
filth. If any of his fellowmen should perceive him acting
in such a way, they would regard him as mad.
—Heraclitus, 535–475 BC
38. Zombie Sadist.
Despite the death of god millennia ago, his undead corpse
still shambles around the earth, leaving bigotry and genocide
behind in its footprint. This zombie being has been mutilated,
stabbed and chopped in virtually every way, and in spite of
« 44 »

— Apocalypse —
this relentless onslaught, it survives unnervingly in the heart
of man. To this point, atheists can speculate that in the event
they do decapitate the god-zombie once and for all, it will proceed then to haunt the world as a ghost. In other words, it
remains quite possible that the god-delusion will never go extinct in total.
39. Ostracism, not Extermination.
Ergo, it behooves atheists to revise their idealistic ambition for annihilation to a realistic ambition for quarantine,
i.e., ostracize believers into remote obscurity. A statistically
significant percentage of members in the main world religions commit acts of terrorism and genocide to defend their
faith in god, thus any pipe dream of global atheistic evangelism classifies as not only impossible, but horribly dangerous.
For example, an apostate atheist in Iraq or Syria at this present moment would suffer crucifixion in front of an apathetic
mob who has already witnessed this sort of brutal murder of
unbelievers myriad times. The law to kill heretics is ingrained
in the culture and seems utterly ordinary to members of society, like a weekend sports event or party.
To reiterate in clearest terms: religious radicals in the
poorest and dumbest areas of the world deem it morally necessary to murder atheists in cruel and unusual ways. It is extremely dangerous to expound the merits of freethought in
those particular countries. Alas, global abolishment of the
god delusion qualifies as literally impossible, thus staunch ostracism of those violent populations remains the only alternative. In short: atheists must place as many miles and walls
as possible between the terrorists and themselves—and even
then the terrorists will still infiltrate their peaceful society.
40. Naked Imperialism.
But it gets worse. These religious radicals need more than
their own safe space; their dogma explicitly requires them to
« 45 »

— Apocalypse —
imperialistically conquer civilizations that do not worship
their god. They seek to install a global empire by necessity.
Likely the reader sniffs out the putrid stink of Jihadism
because the militant Islamic movement, the Islamic State,
rears the ugliest head and shrieks the loudest at present. In
truth the absolutism required for religious faith underlies all
religion in essence—the Islamic State simply embodies it most
honestly, most nakedly, most romantically. By stripping off
the veil of political correctness to reveal their fully nude ambition—nothing less than a terrestrial empire—Isis relishes
its freedom to heroize martyrdom. They declare spiritedly:
we will kill every infidel to install the kingdom of Allah on
this planet. Die for this cause and become an eternal hero!
41. Universal Force.
This kinky imperialism, this raw radicalism, this romantic heroism tugs fiendishly at the heartstrings of any Islamist
with a pulse—like a reformed heroin addict staring at a needle, that little niggle of lust taunts them. Once the lethal poison of theism, of faith, of idealism infiltrates the blood
stream, all that remains is to extend the principle of absolutism to its contingent logical conclusion: the enforcement of
universal compliance.
In the realm of the absolute, any alternative or divergence
from its perfection is looked down upon as a blemish, a pimple on its flawless face. And the faithful idealists will scrub
and scrub until they exfoliate the impurity away. Any idealist—translation: theist—who denies their lust for universal
social compliance immediately classifies as a bald-faced liar.
A real theist cannot believe in a perfectly ideal being whom
created a perfectly ideal world and then also coexist with
swine whose shameless disbelief destroys the perfectly synchronized harmony of the cosmos. Embedded deep inside
the heart of a theist lies the prejudice that every unbeliever
« 46 »

— Apocalypse —
falls under the category of human pollution, a living breathing cancer who infects the health of their god’s perfectly conceived creation.
A genuine theist sees every unbeliever as an affront, as a
danger that threatens to tilt the weighted world off its axis
into a death spiral.
Herein the elementary logic of jihadism:
1. God is a perfect being.
2. God created the world.
3. Thus the world is a perfect creation.
4. But the anomaly of disbelief suggests imperfection in
the world, and thus threatens the perfection of god.
5. The theist must extinguish the threat of imperfection
to defend the perfection of god.
The author will replace the religious terms god and theist
with the secular terms idealism and idealist for a more
grounded comprehension.
The elementary logic of idealism:
1. The ideal exists.
2. The ideal is perfect.
3. Any disbelief in the ideal suggests imperfection, and
thus threatens the perfection of the ideal.
4. The idealist must extinguish the threat of imperfection to defend the perfection of the ideal.
42. Idealism as Religion of Absolutism.
The author discerns the essence of religion below:
1. God: the ideal being.
2. Faith: belief in the ideal being.
3. Worship: sacrifice to the ideal being.
4. Tribe: community that sacrifices to the ideal being.
Religion = god + faith + worship + community.
« 47 »

— Apocalypse —
Religion revolves around the notional existence of an
ideal being at its epicenter, thus the author refers to the entire
ideology as idealism.
Idealism = ideal + faith + worship + community.
Insert the terminology of political statism into the same
formula of idealism, and it reveals every style of government
to be a religion too. For example:

Nationalism = president + patriotism + taxation + citizenry

Globalism = president + humanism + taxation + citizenry

Tribalism = chieftain + nepotism + taxation + family

Republicanism = representatives + populism + taxation + electorate

Democracy = electorate + populism + taxation + citizenry

Communism = regime + distributionism + labor +

Socialism = regime + redistributionism + taxation +

Fascism = regime + corporatism + taxation + citizenry

Monarchism = royalty + authoritarianism + taxation
+ subjects

Totalitarianism = dictator + authoritarianism + labor
+ slaves

Feudalism = aristocracy + authoritarianism + taxation
+ peasants

The reader can literally insert any ideological jargon of
either politics and religion into the formula to unveil both of
them as idealism at heart.

Islam = Allah and Sheikhs + monotheism + tithing +
« 48 »

— Apocalypse —

Christianity = Yahweh and Pope + monotheism +
tithing + Christians

Buddhism = Buddha and Dalai Lama + mysticism +
asceticism + monks

Wicca = divinity + henotheism + sacrifice + witches

43. Truest Enemy of Antitheism.
It is necessary to state whom we regard as our antithesis:
the theologians, and all those who have the blood of theologians in their veins […] this poisoning extends much
further than people think: I unearthed the “arrogant” instinct of the theologians, wherever nowadays people feel
themselves idealists […] they claim the right to rise above
reality and to regard it with suspicion… Like the priest,
the idealist has every grandiloquent concept in his hand,
he wields them all with kindly contempt against the understanding, the senses, honors, decent living, science; he
regards such things as beneath him, as detrimental and
seductive forces, upon the face of which, “the Spirit”
moves in pure absoluteness […] as if holiness had not
done incalculably more harm to life hitherto, than any
sort of horror and vice… Pure spirit is pure falsehood…
As long as the priest, the professional denier, calumniator
and poisoner of life, is considered the highest man, there
can be no answer to the question, what is truth? Truth
has already been turned topsy-turvy, when the conscious
advocate of nonentity and of denial passes as the representative of “truth.”
—Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, aph.8
In light of this critical formula, the shrewd antitheist
identifies his worst enemy as idealism, not just theism per se,
for theism merely amounts to one manifestation of the essential idealism that underlies all absolutist ideologies. View idealism as the face that wears many masks, with religion and
« 49 »

— Apocalypse —
politics being two of those facades, and the manifestation of
its force as statism.
44. Statism as Politics of Force.
If idealism underpins absolutist ideology, then the State
embodies the physical manifestation of its force, e.g., its territory, fortress, army, police, administration, etc. Under this
premise, the traditional distinction between the Church and
State is a gross redundancy—the so-called Church is merely
a theistic incarnation of the State spirit.
Statism (state-ism) pertains to the political enforcement
of an absolutist ideology, be it a theistic state like the Islamic
caliphate or Christian Vatican City or Judaic Israel, or a secular state like a Socialist or Republican nation. It all qualifies
as statism; they all comprise the physical enforcement of idealism.

Idealism: religion of absolutism.

Religion: faith in an absolute—function of idealism.

Statism: politics that enforce idealism.

Politics: procedures of force—function of statism.

In grand summary: politics is a function of statism, whilst
religion is a function of the idealism that the politics enforce.
In other words, politics and religion remain forever entwined
in essence and cannot be separated because politics enforce
religion, i.e., the State enforces the Ideal. This conclusion defies and cripples three hundred years of the modern claim
that the United States has established a “separation of
Church and State” as if religion and politics are mutually exclusive. Nothing can be further from the truth. In reality, it
has established a separation of theism and State, but certainly
not Idealism and State. And by the by, as a pesky aside, when
a national currency bears the phrase “In God we trust” in its
letterhead, as well as crucifixes in municipal courthouses, it
clearly refutes the claim of Church-State separation.
« 50 »

— Apocalypse —
As an example, a republic enforces its own definitive
ideal, its religion. It specifically places faith in the absolute
notion that the supreme way to rule a society is through a
political procedure whereby citizenry elect intermediaries to
legislate on their behalf. Its worship occurs in the manner of
taxation, the forced sacrifice of personal resources to the
ideal. Its community consists of patriotic citizenry who wave
tricolored flags, sing anthems, and reverently place their
hands over their hearts.

Theistic religion = ideal + faith + sacrifice + community

Secular religion = ideal + faith + taxation + citizenry

Dear reader, it does not matter whether the State politically enforces a theistic, mystical, or secular ideal, whether
Islamic law, Buddhist law, or Democratic law, it still enforces
a religion, an ideal—a belief in an absolute idea: that Allah
exists, or that life is suffering, or that populism is fair. Deindoctrinate the falsehood that religion and politics are opposites, when in fact, they need each other.
Religion characterizes the Ideal. Politics characterizes the
State. The State enforces the Ideal, thus Politics enforces the Religion.
It may feel weird to view a secular ideal like democratic
socialism or republican nationalism as a religion since it does
not expound belief in a mythical deity on the surface; nonetheless, it still holds faith in an absolute ideal. This painstaking clarification will strike a fool as convoluted or tedious, but
its importance cannot be overemphasized.
45. Genetic Sadomasochism.
A healthy, rational person can only marvel in bewildered
astonishment at the extreme depth of evil and stupidity necessary to willfully champion any kind of idealistic imperialism. It would petrify them to discover that nearly the entire
« 51 »

— Apocalypse —
human species blindly worships Statist Idealism in its smorgasbord of incarnations across the globe. Almost nobody
identifies as an antitheist, anti-statist, or anti-idealist explicitly.
What explains the heavy prevalence of this psychic illness? Quite simply: religious idealism and its accompanied
political statism has been, and continues to be, bred into the
genetics of humanity generation after generation. Humans
are born into its dogma and indoctrinated thoroughly in
To answer the question succinctly: inbred brainwashing.
46. Masochistic Psychology.
As dystopian as it sounds, the human species rigorously
breeds masochism into the psychology of its offspring, who
then willfully submit to the Ideal under threat of force by the
State. To reiterate another way: over hundreds of generations
humanity has reared its own underclass of genetic masochists
who submit to the idealistic sadism of the State.
Sadomasochism is the most deep-seated trait genealogically conditioned into the human psyche. Only this morning
does the race finally awaken from the hibernation of this vicious cycle; it rubs its eyes for the first time in wonderment
at the history of evil as if it were all just a dream, as if the
feasting succubus was just a nightmare—and not really our
Could it be true? Did humans really breed generation after generation of utterly submissive masochists who championed their own sadists in the State? How does one shed their
own genetic skin like a snake to escape this?
How does humanity escape its past when that very past
makes up the blood in its veins—when that past acts as the
metronome by which the heart beats?

« 52 »

— Apocalypse —
Perhaps deindoctrinate idealism itself. Would this recode genetics, mutate blood cells, reshape a fingerprint?
Would the human undergo rebirth into a free spirit like a
snake with a new skin or a bird with new feathers? Would
the face of man change?
We cannot radically heal any evil within an organism
unless we submit the entire organism to new laws of life.
You ask: “But then what do you want? Can you proclaim
for us a form of life which will be more suitable to freedom
after the perishing of the institutions of the state? [...] Do
you offer us any other prospect besides anarchy, murder,
and robbery? Show us a free, safe form of life and we
would gladly agree with you.”
To this I respond quite simply that it is not our business
to construct. Indeed, can any new crop sprout up as long
as the old weeds thrive luxuriantly? Thus you must first
exterminate the old weeds. [...] Do you know that you
are like a group of PhDs who believe that we want to
give the people a philosophy with propositions, conclusions, and concepts? Nonsense! In any case, our philosophy exists only for the purpose of clearing away the traditional ideas of belief from human heads; thus, just at
first, we can do nothing further than to criticize political
forms, political concepts, and the religio-political trust,
and to be satisfied if our critique is accurate and if it has
proven that it is a contradiction to want to win freedom
within the context of existing forms. Then in spite of all
that, everyone and his brother may come and say: “But
my God, there must be religion, there must be a state,
there must be righteousness, there must be law.” This outcry does not bother us since it proceeds against critique out
of fear, out of the presuppositions of faithfulness [...] these

« 53 »

— Apocalypse —
people are just naturally deaf to deductive arguments for
a rational freedom.
Therefore, you ask me what “the free community” is,
what it looks like, how it is possible. To that I can give
you no answer, for who is permitted to think beyond his
own time? Our time, though, is only critical and destructive.
We set ourselves directly against our determined institutions because the spirit of non-freedom manifests itself in
them. We do not bear ill will toward kings, but toward
kingship; strip this man of the glitter of the throne, and
he will be harmless.
—Edgar Bauer, Critique’s Quarrel With Church & State
47. Suicide Mission.
The ultimate personification of idealism—namely,
god—the epitome of bad taste, bad conscience, and bad logic
embodied into an undead zombie who saunters across the
terrain… to slay this beast, the zombie hunter must chop its
head off. Mutilation of limbs and chest will not do, for it will
still bite with jagged rotted teeth. One must decapitate it.
Do not be a fool! This vocation to assassinate god equals
nothing less than a voluntary suicide mission. Absolutely nobody survives; any who wanders into the black forest of antitheism will suffer euthanasia of the soul guaranteed. A human
being simply cannot witness the death of god and remain the
same person. Whosoever unlocks the gate to their heart so
the essence of death may penetrate and paint it in the darkest
shade of midnight, whosoever incarnates in this lifetime as
The Devil, whosoever pets demons in the palm of their hand
with stars in their eyes, and takes tragedy on the chin unfazed, only this lucky stroke, this species of freak, this bastard
child of fate, this monster of the abyss, can knock the sun king
off his throne of piled skulls.
« 54 »

— Apocalypse —
In this tragically decadent world, with its shallow culture
filled to the brim and spilling over the sides with masochists
of every stripe, all of whom sacrifice blood and bone on the
altar of idealism, the antitheist must be suicidal at the least, as
the preliminary prerequisite. Do not risk this apocalyptic disillusionment unless one can afford to become an unseen ghost
who passes through the walls of society. Food feels cumbersome, sex feels like a chore, and one’s own skin feels like it
cuts off circulation. To strip off the veil of god—and god here
encompasses all absolutist ideology—exposes the fraudulence
of everything. Suddenly everything feels like a pebble in a
shoe because it is all so depressingly unnecessary. When you
murder god, a nuclear winter ensues, and by the looks of society that arctic darkness may never lift.
48. Theogony.
If humans conceived god and then they abort god, what
does that say about god? Better still: what does it say about
Does not the capacity to birth a god rank them above
The flip-side: if humans conceived god and then believed
that god created them in reverse, what does that say about
Does not a parent who believes their own child gave birth
to them rank below an animal? Even a worm knows its own
I teach you the Übermensch. Man is something that shall
be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? […]
You have made your way from worm to man, and much
within you is still worm. […] Even the wisest among

« 55 »

— Apocalypse —
you is still a hybrid of plant and ghost. But do I bid you
become ghosts or plants? […]
Man is a rope stretched between animal and the Übermensch—a rope over an abyss. […] What is great in man
is that he is a bridge, and not a goal...
—Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, aph.3,4
49. Immortal Combat.
David slew Goliath with a deadly accurate blow to the
forehead. Likewise, to slay god one needs only a single fatal
strike: to obliterate his ontology—his notional being. Nonetheless, the author will assassinate god with two kinds of
strikes—the first to kill it, the second to certify it cannot resurrect.
Formal nomenclature of these refutations:
1. Qualitative: ontology
2. Valuative: epistemology, morality, aesthetics
50. The World’s First Fan Fiction.
No theist has ever validly proven that divinity exists—not
logically, not empirically, not any way. They merely presume
it lives in their thousands of tautological mythologies. At
best, they define god into existence.
In reality, the god-character is the world’s oldest and
most popular fictional protagonist, followed by Bilbo Baggins, Harry Potter, and Luke Skywalker. Every mainstream
bookstore and library houses multiple shelves that feature a
variety of editions, versions, translations and interpretations
of Christian, Islamic, and Jewish fiction. Although, unlike
Baggins, Potter and Skywalker, the god-character has been
portrayed in every demographic as virtually every sex, race,
animal, tree, plant, stone, weather, season, and force of nature in thousands of alternate universes. When one strips

« 56 »

— Apocalypse —
away the romantic pomp and circumstance, religious literature is nothing but the longest and biggest collaborative coauthorship project between billions of people in history; a
global human undertaking that has weaved together the most
elaborate fan fiction for a single character ever.
All recorded civilizations—repeat: all recorded civilizations—have re-imagined this same god-character in their
own mythical or mystical fashion, often deifying and diabolizing names and personas from one another. And yet despite
this monolithic tradition over millennia, nobody has confirmed in any conclusive way that the being exists for real;
everybody just sort of took everybody else’s word for it as if it
did not matter.
In a certain sense, the god-hypothesis does not need to
be disproven because it has never been proven. Due to this, any
time an atheist does charity to dismantle the falsity of divinity, they deserve acknowledgement for their generosity.
Yes—the reader read that right. When an atheist exorcises the ghost of god back to the void, they do so charitably.
51. Ontology: God as Zombie.
Theologians have long defined god as a perfect being. A
perfect being necessarily consists of perfect qualities, i.e., it
contains perfect character traits, perfect presence, perfect
time, etc.
Alas! A perfect being can never change because it exists in
an eternal condition of flawlessness. The tiniest little edit ruins its perfection forever. Thus, god refers to a frozen being,
a fixed being, a static being, an ossified being, a fossilized being, a dead being.
The English lexicon possesses a word for this: corpse.
The ontology behind perfect being remains a purely hypothetical notion; the only citable example of perfect being

« 57 »

— Apocalypse —
in reality lies in the rigor mortis of a lifeless body—it has no
functions, no processes, it becomes static.
God cannot be alive because life requires constant
change. God could only assume form in reality as a corpse.
Technically, even a dead body decays and mutates, but the
premise stands. When a theologian defines god as perfect being, he unwittingly declares the death of god. When a theist
claims god to be alive, he unknowingly classifies god as the
living dead.
The amusing absurdity of theology: god as an undead
52. Epistemology: God as Boogieman.
Epistemology refers to the manner by which humans validate knowledge. In this postmodern era, scientific empiricism
acts as the grounds for epistemology.
Greek philosopher Aristotle has become known as the
great ancient champion and purveyor of empiricism. The
term derives from Greek empeirikos, which means experience
or reality. Ergo, empiricism requires physical evidence in order for a hypothesis to pass as a valid theory. Believe it or not,
in science nobody can prove a theory per se—they can only
falsify bad ideas and view whatever remains as tentatively
valid. Hence the popular maxim: science is never settled.
Point blank: the god-hypothesis is unempirical and
therefore unscientific and thus fails the requirements of epistemology. A scientist cannot falsify the claim that a deity created
the cosmos; a biologist cannot verify the claim that an immaterial soul exists inside the human body. Not only does god
remain unproven, it cannot be proven. How does an astronomer confirm the location of heaven and hell, or Mount
Olympus and Hades—which, by the by, provides yet another
example of how the authors of Christianity borrowed from
Greek culture, in particular from the celestial and infernal
landscapes of their mythical other-worlds.
« 58 »

— Apocalypse —
Theists generally define god as a being who observes and
lives with people omnipresently at all times. God as spook
that haunts bedrooms? God as boogieman?
53. Morality: God as Freddy Krueger.
The pathos of tragedy—the gut wrench a witness feels
when they watch disaster befall a good person. They close
their eyes, shake their head, and exclaim: what a tragedy!
That person did not deserve that fate!
Man still has no answer to the question: why do bad
things happen to good people? This mystery has plagued him
since the inception of religion—hell, this question fostered the
advent of religion!
The gods hate me? The universe despises me? I did
something wrong? I have offended nature?
No! A thousand times no!
It is nothing short of remarkable that humanity still cannot stare reality straight in its cosmic eyes and affirm: you
owe us nothing, and we owe you thing. Friend—the answer
to this riddle is that no riddle exists. The only exit from morality’s circular logic is to never plunge into its infinite loop
in the first place. Moral absolutism swallows a thinker whole
in its bottomless quicksand.
Cosmic morality does not exist; hence disaster strikes
good people every day. True cosmic justice would necessitate
that all events unfold equivalent to the moral value of their
original cause. A person who acts ethically 95 percent of the
time would then need to experience good fortune 95 percent
of the time. Inversely, a corrupt villain who deceives and defrauds would need to suffer tragedy ordinarily. But friend,
don’t evil people tend to… excel?
This leaves two possibilities: either the cosmos is devoid
of morality or the cosmos possesses inverse causality and bestows fortune upon the evil and tragedy upon the noble to
« 59 »

— Apocalypse —
variant degrees. In the latter circumstance, moral pessimism
becomes the rule—the cosmos itself becomes evil mainly.
The traditional theist defines god as a perfectly moral being who created the cosmos. If that flawless entity failed to
infuse morality into its creation, then it cannot be flawless,
ergo god does not exist. If that flawless entity did infuse morality into its creation, then that entity qualifies as evil because it victimizes innocent people with a serial frequency.
Children born into slavery in the Middle East? Half of Europe decimated by the Black Plague? Malaria slaughters entire tribes in Africa like a vicious ghost army every year.
So which does the reader prefer: no god and no cosmic
morality or a merciless god with the ethics of a serial killer?
God as horror movie villain? God as Freddy Krueger?
The monk screams: wait, wait! A perfectly moral god exists, but he granted everyone a soul with free will. Now god
snuggles on a couch in apathetic bliss whilst cherubs feed him
grapes in heaven.
Oh, sad little monk, one cannot hate you for trying. But
god still qualifies as evil in that absurd scenario. He still created a cosmos where natural disaster devastates whole populations all the time, regardless of individual free will—if that
even exists. On the main, the deity’s creation generally
plagues human life with no rhyme or reason.
Did the infant born with AIDs inflict that upon herself
through her free will? An earthquake in Haiti terminated
316,000 innocent men, women, and children in 2010. Did
their free will cause that brutal natural disaster?
At what point does the theist acknowledge that fate can
impose devastation upon innocent people because the universe
has no innate morality to moderate it?
If god exists, the heinous monster deserves nothing less
than an Inquisition-style torture and death.
« 60 »

— Apocalypse —
54. Aesthetics: God as Frankenstein.
Golden halos, lighthearted angels, billowy clouds, flowing white robes… Renaissance painters depicted their monistic god in the loftiest, most beautiful aesthetic they could
imagine. Or, perhaps a contemporary New Age motif of pantheism… photos of spiral galaxies and rainbow nebulae. Or,
maybe a Wiccan polytheistic portrayal of the goddess… a
nude, innocently sexual woman with long red hair seated on
a giant mushroom in a serene meadow; she has befriended
the morning songbird and evening firefly; baby deer bring her
fresh fruit in the afternoon. So darling! So adorable! So
lovely! So… boring.
Artists tends to characterize their god according to what
they consider the quintessence of cleanliness and health.
Does anybody find it peculiar that theists never depict their
god as a filthy, cancerous troll—one who eats shit, and lives
amongst the jackals?
If god is defined as the being of perfect beauty and health
whom created the cosmos, then why does ugliness and illness
exist? Did this flawless being forget to infuse humanity with
perfect health too, the way it failed with morality?
The New Ager screams: oh, oh, oh! Wait! Humans possess immortality, but simply have not unlocked it yet. If only
everybody ate ten bananas, five apples, and three plates of
tofu every day, the species would live forever.
To which the author retorts: every single human being
who has ever lived has also died. Do not talk about immortality when death has a statistical rate of 100 percent certainty!
If god created man in his own image—as a reflection of
itself—and man suffers deformity, illness, sickness, retardation and death, then must not god look like a shit-eating
troll? A mishmash of odds and ends stitched together into a
freak? God as Frankenstein?
« 61 »

— Apocalypse —
55. The Apocalypse.
All ridicule of god aside, the death of faith in this nonentity does not merely entail the death of the god-character
per se. It demolishes the earthly foundation on which all ideology stands. When god collapses dead into his own footprint, it sends shockwaves across the soul of humankind. It
detonates a veritable armageddon of the psyche; one which betides the Age of Nihilism with a nuclear winter of the intellect
at a magnitude unexperienced in the species’ history.
Quite literally, the English lexicon does not possess the
necessary terminology to define the substance and scope of
this global ideological cataclysm. For the death of god denotes the death of idealism in mankind. The most toxic intellectual venom caused mankind to fall into a coma over ten
thousand years ago. Who can possibly prognosticate what
illness and madness will ensue when he finally opens his eyes
and sees reality for the first time, moreover, when it dawns
on him how much evil he committed in his stupor? His ocean
of tears would drown the earth. •

« 62 »

— Nihilism —


56. Claude Monet.
A generation of sons and daughters reared in a bomb
shelter. Children who dance and tiptoe on the edge of the
world. Those who experience one perpetual season—a skyless
nuclear winter. They are forced to wear gas masks at all times
when they enter the maelstrom. They dream about tomorrow
inside the quarantine of a steel vault and live through photographs of paintings—Impression, soleil levant.
Who are these isolated ones, who will never see the sunrise?
57. Monsters of Fate.
The muscular, bulging arms of fate viscerally offend the
sleepyheads whom hallucinate the mirage of freedom. These
dopers chronically inject anesthesia to numb their skin while
the sandpaper of reality scrapes layer after layer off their flesh.
They simply cannot cope with the nauseating fact that an incalculable number of cosmic forces act squarely against
them—it poisons their stomach like bad shellfish. To their
own demise, they remain utterly oblivious to the skyscraper
tsunami that steamrolls across the surface of the ocean toward
them. Oh, but they still smell a stink in the air… they watch
« 63 »

— Nihilism —
the seagulls leap into the wind and fly off as the rodents scatter into the brush; they hear how everything sounds so hollow
anymore. They feel in their heart of hearts lately that life has
abandoned them. The pathos of desolation creeps into their
blood. But why… has the numbing agent worn off?
Pause now, and rise above the monotony of mobile
phones, cars, and children. Observe the blistering tornado of
fate that spins mercilessly around humanity. That is to say:
certain crises will unfold inevitably regardless of whether the
lonely widow indulges in a second cup of java chip ice cream.
To use vulgarity: the universe does not give a flying fuck
about human affairs. Any belief that it does measures as the
pinnacle of vanity.
Dear reader, do not mistake this for melodramatic alarmism, like the hackneyed television economists who herald
doom and gloom every day. This is a far more cosmic and soulful and exotic reality.
For example, the Andromeda Galaxy will collide into the
Milky Way Galaxy in four billion years, swallow many of its
stars, and ejaculate a third, new galaxy tentatively called the
Milkomeda Galaxy. This mathematical fate will unravel and
any sapient biological beings who live in the Milky Way Galaxy at that colossal turning point will need to devise an escape.
For a second notorious example, the sun will explode in
four billion years, around the same time Andromeda crashes
into Milky Way. The dwarf star will inflate to the size of a
red giant and eat the earth in one bite.
Pray tell—what does humanity matter to these monsters
of fate? To this point, what do human fictions like god and
morality matter?
If the universe itself sprints to obliterate the home of humanity in the most casual blink of an eye, what does that say
about the value of humanity in the eyes of the universe?
« 64 »

— Nihilism —
Expendable waste. Cosmically worthless.
When a carpenter demolishes a house, what does he care
about the termites nested in the walls? Perhaps he tears the
building down because of the termites. In parallel, if a deity
erects and then annihilates the Milky Way, perhaps it does
that because it hates the humans, and sees them as termites
in the walls of his house?
58. Cosmic Amorality.
Time is a child moving counters in a game; the royal
power is a child's.
—Heraclitus, Fragment 24
For so long humans have glorified their own existence.
They have claimed to be the privileged sons and daughters of
perfect gods—a political rank above royalty!—and yet in this
vain ivory tower they have not once considered the possibility
that they rank on par with fecal matter on the weighted scale
of the universe. In reaction to this humiliation, the religious
faithful inject more tranquilizer into their bruised butt
cheeks. Like battered housewives they repeat the mantra that
life is sacred and swear the invisible god secretly does care
about them.
To flip religious arrogance onto its head: what if the cosmos despises humanity? Would it not explain why it has fired
the Andromeda Galaxy at the Milky Way like a heat-seeking
missile? What if god has washed his hands of humanity because he views it as a waste of carbon?
The cosmos, the universe, and life possess neither intrinsic meaning nor value—they are all worth whatever worth individuals assign to them. To the serial killer, life has negligible value, whereas to the great grandparent, life has inestimable value.

« 65 »

— Nihilism —
The fairest universe is a but a heap of rubbish piled up at
—Heraclitus, Fragment 40
Human beings invented a plastic, pliable concept called
value in order to give their own lives meaning as a way to feel
important or necessary or above nature. In reality, to the
99.999 percent remainder of the cosmos, value has no concept, no place, no role. The universe does not need valuation—it does not need morality—in order to act cleanly and
Donkeys would prefer straw to gold.
—Heraclitus, Fragment 102
59. Predicament.
The author poses this predicament. Which of the following seems more reasonable?

Amorality: the universe does not possess an implicit,
absolute morality, and thus the obliteration of the
Milky Way means nothing ultimately.

Morality: the universe possesses an implicit, absolute
morality, and thus the obliteration of humanity’s
home galaxy qualifies as evil, and means pessimism

There can be no two ways about it! The cosmos either
exists amorally or morally. It is either devoid of moral valuation or highlighted by one. The mathematical certainty of a
galactic collision demands much-needed soul-searching,
even if the reader will never witness it personally.
It begs the question: how could such an abject holocaust
take place in a supposedly noble world of moral justice?

« 66 »

— Nihilism —
60. Nietzsche Contra Kant.
The shrewd but flawed modern philosopher Immanuel
Kant would deny the premise of this predicament. He declared that morality can only exist amongst rational entities
who have free will, e.g., humans. Ergo, one cannot assign a
moral judgement to natural catastrophes. This definition of
morality sounds logical on the surface and reigned for a century, but it crumbled under the mightiest hammer blows of
the next era.
Kant elucidated it thus:
What else, then, can freedom of the will be but autonomy,
i.e., the property that the will has of being a law to itself
[...] the principle of acting according to no other maxim
than that which can at the same time have itself as the
universal law for its object. Now this is precisely the formula for the categorical imperative and is the principle
of morality. Thus a free will and a will subject to moral
laws are one and the same.
For inasmuch as morality serves as a law for us only insofar as we are rational beings, it must also be valid for
all rational beings. And since morality must be derived
solely from the property of freedom [...] the property of the
will of all rational beings.
—Immanuel Kant, Metaphysics of Moral, s.447-8
Kant’s postmodern progeny, Friedrich Nietzsche, would
turn back and tear his predecessor’s premise in half, and employ the first part as grounds for his own adversarial theory.
He insisted that humans of course categorize as rational beings, but that Kant failed to prove that his perfect, absolute
condition known as freedom of will exists at all.
Moreover, the fact that humans exist as rational beings
only supports the conclusion that early humans originated
morality in the first place, ergo its theoretical values remain a
matter of perspective between each individual human. In
« 67 »

— Nihilism —
other words, Nietzsche apprehends Kant on the deceptive
maneuver in which he manufactured an absolute freedom in
order to justify his second absolute of cosmic morality. This
line in the sand between Nietzsche and Kant exhibits the
eternal dispute in morality between perspectivism and absolutism.
Not only would Nietzsche lick his chops at the aforementioned predicament between amorality and morality as
dictated by the impending collision between galaxies, but he
unveiled a strikingly similar theme in one of the most beautifully unnerving literary passages he ever penned:
In some remote corner of the sprawling universe, twinkling among the countless solar systems, there was once a
star on which some clever animals invented knowledge.
It was the most arrogant, most mendacious minute in
world history, but it was only a minute. After nature
caught its breath a little, the star froze, and the clever
animals had to die. And it was time, too: for although
they boasted of how much they had come to know, in the
end they realized they had gotten it all wrong. They died
and in dying cursed truth. Such was the species of doubting animal that had invented knowledge.
—Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Pathos of Truth
If the cosmos contains an implicit absolute morality encoded into its fiber, and if natural occurrences terminate life
frequently, then the cosmos itself qualifies as evil because it
violates its own morality. Kant tried to devise a fire exit to
escape out of this logical trap when he assigned morality to
beings with free will only. Freedom measures as an absolute,
i.e., it cannot have half-measures, a person cannot be halffree. Hence, the terms absolute and perfect mean the same
thing—purity or flawlessness. Therefore, Kant foolishly assigned morality to rational beings who have perfect will under
his definition. A being with perfect will cannot have a morality because it can only ever think and act perfectly anyway.
« 68 »

— Nihilism —
This tautology in Kantian morality implodes his theory, like
a long train that speeds around a short circular track and
eventually crashes into its own caboose. Good try though,
Freedom refers to an absolute or flawless condition, and
flawlessness pertains only to a perfect being, ergo only a perfect being can possess truly free will. Incidentally, this syllogism not only ruptures the Kantian delusion of absolute morality, but it bursts the traditional idea of free will altogether—by the by, it demolishes the antithetical notion of
determinism also, which merely commits the exact same perfection fallacy of free will but on the flip-side. In summary,
both the thesis of free will and its antithesis of determinism
classify as absurdly irrational—because they require absolute
61. Thunderbolts of Fate.
Alright, so?
Consider this fact: the multitudinous forces of the world
at large affect a person incalculably more than the force that
person affects upon the world. To reiterate: fate grips—and
periodically strangles—the soul of man and woman more
than they stomach to concede! What does the minnow matter to the tsunami? What does the single blade of wheat matter to the scythe? If one defines fate as the thunderstorm of
cultural forces inflicted upon every individual human by the
sum of humanity, then fate necessarily becomes inescapable
insofar as an individual lives amongst humanity.
A person may change the world—but the world always
changes the person. Fate does not need people to believe in
it in order for its dermabrasion wheel to pierce the skin. If
only life came with a bottle of lidocaine because the individual is forced to weather the thunderbolts of fate head-on with
no anesthesia. Hence, they cook tranquilizers and sedatives
under the formula of ideals and absolutes, they claim to be
« 69 »

— Nihilism —
the chosen ones, the sons and daughters of perfect gods, destined for eternal paradises—these opaque glasses fully blind
them to the lightning strikes of reality.
Who can blame them though?
62. Hellraisers.
Perhaps the secret to life lies in an alternate viewpoint
altogether. Rather than injecting anesthesia to numb away
the storm… chase after the storm. Does this not turn fate
around against itself? Become one of the courageous few who
raises storms. Descend into the brimstone mine of hell and
summon its devils to conspire on earth!
So many become disoriented in the fluffy cotton ball
clouds of celestial idealism, when in reality only a hellraiser
can ever undermine the terrain and cope with the sticks and
stones of life.
63. Suicide & Cannibalism.
Nearby off the sleepy coast, the vigilant hellraiser has
keenly observed over millennia how those very celestial
clouds have transmogrified into the blackest storm clouds.
The oceanic tides of fate ever beckon this belligerent apocalypse toward the shore one generation at a time. Wherefore
the once buttery horizon has desaturated to an unnerving
monochrome. A glassy silence crystalizes the air. If one were
to poke the atmosphere with a finger, it would electrocute
Nihilism is at our door: whence comes this most gruesome
of all guests to us?
—Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, A Plan
Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. This most gruesome
guest knocks at the front door as a mockery because it knows
humanity cringes with every thud. It will force its way
through the most vulnerable points of entry if necessary. In
« 70 »

— Nihilism —
fact, its toxic fumes have already crept in through every window, every chimney, every cellar door, and infected all residents.
Dear reader, like fungus in the wooden beams of a house,
nihilism has thoroughly decayed the lofty columns of human
culture—and it will accelerate furiously into a frenzied maelstrom of suicidal cannibalism. How else does one define nihilism if not suicide and cannibalism?
Nihilists kill themselves and eat their own.
64. Orgasms of Humanicide.

An Islamic jihadist declares in no uncertain terms that
Allah rules the earth, and thus to install his global empire
he should eradicate all infidels! Suicide bombings ensue…

A Christian inquisitor declares in dogmatic terms that
Yahweh’s word is law, and thus to enforce the Bible he
should travel across Europe to punish all heretics! Burnings at the stake ensue…

A Buddhist monk declares in absolute terms that life is
suffering, and thus to evade that affliction he should
eliminate his sense of identity! A fiery self-immolation

A Communist dictator declares in categorical terms that
centralized distribution guarantees equality for all, and
thus to enforce the iron-fisted policy the regime should
assassinate all dissidents! A political genocide ensues…

A Fascist dictator declares in idealistic terms that one
master race rules over all others, and thus to wipe out the
pollution of inferior races the regime should exterminate
all foreigners! An ethnic cleansing ensues…

A Crony Capitalist declares in definitive terms that marijuana poses a severe danger to society, and thus to criminalize the herbal threat the nation should prohibit its
« 71 »

— Nihilism —
possession! An epidemic of incarceration in his private
prisons ensue...

A Republican or Democratic representative declares in
unconditional terms that the will of the majority must
rule, and thus to become a candidate he should promise
corporate contracts, grants, welfare, citizenship, and legal
amnesty to donors and voters! A corrupt legislature ensues…

A Social Justice Warrior declares in authoritative terms
that no one can say anything offensive, and thus to combat against micro-aggressions the government should
prohibit hate speech! A censorship of free speech ensues…

A Radical Feminist declares in universal terms that all
men are rapists, and thus to fight sexual abuse all men
should undergo forced castration or sterilization. An epidemic of false rape accusations ensues…

A Central Banker declares in unequivocal terms that
constant inflation helps the economy, and thus to stimulate growth the bank should print an endless amount of
artificial money. A currency collapse ensues...

65. Annihilism.
What does Nihilism mean? That the highest values are
losing their value. […] Every purely moral valuation
terminates in Nihilism.
—Nietzsche, Ibid, aph.2,19
For a formal definition: nihilism refers to the last stage of
an irrational ideology where it annihilates itself; when its own
meaning becomes meaningless; when its values reach their
absurd conclusion and thereby cause its demise; an intellectual regression ensues; the ideology commits suicide by virtue
of its own asinine absolutism; the body develops cancer which

« 72 »

— Nihilism —
kills the body. As such, the author has coined the term annihilism to clarify its meaning in a tongue-in-cheek way.
There finally arises a certain self-annihilation, an antagonistic attitude toward itself. […] The nihilistic consequences [...] where all principles at length become
tainted with the atmosphere of the platform.
—Nietzsche, Ibid, A Plan
Two religious movements on planet Earth at this current
moment epitomize nihilism in its maximal glory, both of
which the author enumerated previously. This pair stands out
because they each embody one of the two flavors or varieties
of nihilism:
1. Theistic
2. Secular
66. Theistic Nihilism.
Ah, the religion of peace! Islam distinguishes itself by its
extremely brutal imperialism but with a deliciously psychotic
twist—its radicals often commit homicide through suicide.
Above and beyond any form of nihilism in world history, Islamic jihad wears the gold medal for first place in the sport
of hyper-belligerence. Nothing reeks of annihilism more putridly than genocide through suicide.
A female honey bee dies when she stings a victim. When
her stinger lodges in place and she pulls away to fly off, it rips
out her intestines and she falls dead. In a deranged sort of
suicidal homicide, radical jihadists wage war like a female
honey bee. They consume themselves to consume others—
rather, they sacrifice themselves to sacrifice others on the altar of Allah.
It may strike a casual, grounded human being as unbelievable or incredible that any radical this extreme can walk the
face of the earth. Everybody has heard of the anarchist-com-

« 73 »

— Nihilism —
munist who hurls a Molotov cocktail through a factory window or the angry protestors who flip over cop cars, or the
environmentalists who chain themselves to evergreen trees
but who believes that people can become so passionate about
an ideology that they literally kill themselves in order to kill
intellectual deviants? The Islamic State—the most ruthlessly
terroristic political entity in Islam and the quintessence of hyper-nihilism—releases a glossy digital magazine called
Dabiq, which they circulate globally to fan the flame of jihad
in the hearts of believers. In the most recent Issue 15 of this
horror-novel-of-a-periodical entitled Break the Cross, they
feature an acidic article aggressively called “Why We Hate
You & Why We Fight You.” The anonymous author cites
their six worst grievances with Western culture as the explicit
reasons for why they strive tirelessly to exterminate infidels.
As an amusing aside, they do not care about the conventional
left-right divide in Western politics. They despise both liberals and conservatives, referring to secularists as the “atheist
fringe” and Christians as “pagan devils.” They see the whole
spectrum from left to right as irredeemably malevolent.
Herein an abridged version of critical passages from their
1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah [...] you blaspheme
against Him [...] you fabricate lies against His prophets
and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.
These insane nihilists need not clarify any further. Faithfully in the fashion of an absolutist ideology, they identify
disbelief, heresy, and apostasy as the topmost evil that any
human can commit. Defection and deviation cannot exist in
an absolutist world because it evidences imperfection, which
ruins the absolute like chocolate stains on a dry cleaned shirt.
« 74 »

— Nihilism —
2. We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited [...] you
separate between religion and state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power. In doing so, you desire to rob
Allah of His right to be obeyed and you wish to usurp that
right for yourselves. […] Your secular liberalism has led
you to tolerate and even support “gay rights,” to allow
alcohol, drugs, fornication, gambling, and usury to become widespread, and to encourage the people to mock
those who denounce these filthy sins and vices. As such,
we wage war against you to stop you from spreading your
disbelief and debauchery—your secularism and nationalism, your perverted liberal values, your Christianity
and atheism—and all the depravity and corruption they
entail. You’ve made it your mission to “liberate” Muslim
societies; we’ve made it our mission to fight off your influence and protect mankind from your misguided concepts and your deviant way of life.
In the above quotation, the Islamic theocratists criticize
secular democracy and accuse all secularists, nationalists,
Christians, and atheists of sacrilege and profanity.
3. In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage
war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of
your Lord and Creator.
The only conceivable sin worse than disbelief in the brain
of a jihadist would be for a person to become their own god.
4. We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage
war against you to punish you for your transgressions
against our religion. As long as your subjects continue to
mock our faith, insult the prophets of Allah [...] burn the
Quran, and openly vilify the laws of the Shari’ah, we

« 75 »

— Nihilism —
will continue to retaliate, not with slogans and placards,
but with bullets and knives.
The Islamic radical makes it abundantly clear what he
means in this passage; no commentary needed.
5. We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims; your
drones and fighter jets bomb, kill, and maim our people
around the world, and your puppets in the usurped lands
of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war against
anyone who calls to the truth. As such, we fight you to
stop you from killing our men, women and children, to
liberate those of them whom you imprison and torture
and to take revenge for the countless Muslims who’ve suffered as a result of your deeds.
6. We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to
repel you and drive you out. As long as there is an inch of
territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will continue to be a
personal obligation on every single Muslim.
The religious radical conflates defensive Western interventionism against terroristic Jihadist imperialism as an attack on their theocratic society.
In total, the Islamic State categorizes every single act or
idea that violates Quranic dogma and Shariah law as a malicious offense against their god Allah, even if the sinner lives
on a remote island and has never heard of Islam. This grotesque magazine, Dabiq, furnishes the bare naked worldview
of theistic nihilism as it exists in real time right now.
They must enforce and preserve their fictional, idealistic,
absolutist religion at all costs, including the loss of their own
lives—hence, suicidal homicide. As if the watermark of
atrocity could rise no higher, the Islamic State has rolled out
its newest program, Cubs of the Caliphate, where they encourage brainwashed children to suicide bomb for them.

« 76 »

— Nihilism —
The reader will recall that nihilism denotes the condition
whereby an ideology regresses upon itself; its meaning becomes meaningless; when the logical extreme of the values
invalidates the original values themselves; a dog chases its tail
and bites its own ass; ouroboros; suicide; intellectual cannibalism.
Islamic hyper-nihilism highlighted: the religion of peace
forces its children to commit suicidal homicide.
Unrhetorical questions: can a human ideology become
more absurd? How does a rational person cope with the reality of such evil? What does the mainstream popularity of this
religion—and any religion for that matter—say about humanity in essence?
67. Secular Nihilism.
Buddhism distinguishes itself through its soul-deadening asceticism, a sort of insidious life-long psychic suicide in
a prison-like quarantine out of society. Their secular dogma
that life is suffering engenders radical pessimism in the hearts
of its adherents, which they mask behind plastic smiles, while
they panhandle for stale rice due to self-avowed poverty.
In The Will to Power, Nietzsche characterized this psychosis as a “Yearning for nonentity [...] pessimism leads finally to nihilism […] the abdication of the will to live.”
To flesh that out, half a billion healthy able-bodied men
and women who otherwise could have contributed greatness
to the world, have nihilistically reduced themselves to extremely impoverished conditions due to their absurd ideology
of pessimism. A Buddhist embodies the figure of speech
waste of life. Monks, quite literally, are bums whom prey off
the sympathy of generous neighbors to receive handouts because they loathe to participate in reality. They suppress this
psycho-pathology under the cover of shallow platitudes like
gratitude and forgiveness. Gratitude for what?—for the constant donations they guilt trip out of the local townspeople.
« 77 »

— Nihilism —
Forgiveness for what?—for the townspeople whom decline
to donate.
The jagged lightning bolts of reality horrify mystics, so
they scramble to inject the anesthetic of Buddhism into their
buttocks. Whenceforth, they remain numb in a lotus posture
in the safe space of barren white-walled cells for the duration
of their vacuous lives.
Oh Timothy, if these smiley monks would like to squander their precious time on earth, why excoriate them?—
pleads the bleeding heart. Pray tell, oh bleeding heart, how
does Buddhism linger on generation after generation when it
fosters nothing but widespread poverty? Answer: forced child
indoctrination! Oh bleeding heart, why doest thy heart not
bleedeth for the hundreds of millions of child abuse victims?
Answer: ignorance and hypocrisy. Do an online search for
Buddhist child abuse. The Dalai Lama rivals the Catholic
Pope for most skeletons hidden in a robed man’s closet.
This secular religion wears the gold medal for first place
in the sport of hyper-pessimism—the absolute dogma that
life sucks and therefore everyone should divorce themselves
from it through ascetic deprivation. Mystics do nothing but
hide from reality.
68. Fallout in the Abyss.
Greater dooms win greater destinies.
—Heraclitus, Fragment 70
When a person jumps into the air, they inevitably hit the
ground. When a species militantly breeds absolutist ideology
into itself for over ten thousand years, they inevitably suffer
an apocalypse of the psyche, an Armageddon of the intellect,
a nuclear winter of the soul. At present, humanity commences this devastating epidemic, this Black Plague of the

« 78 »

— Nihilism —
The time is coming when we shall have to pay for having
been Christians for two thousand years: we are losing the
equilibrium which enables us to live.
—Nietzsche, Ibid, aph.30
Timothy revises: The time is coming when we shall have
to pay for having been religious since prehistory!
The curse has been cast. The fate has been sealed. The
dice have been rolled. The atomic bomb has been dropped.
The soul of man is doomed for the foreseeable future. An
unprecedented catastrophic nuclear accident befell Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986; scientists estimate it will remain uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years—an untouchable malignant tumor on the face of earth! For how long will the human
psyche bear the radioactive contamination of its own hypernihilistic fallout? No greater line of inquiry exists!
The Somali Democratic Republic, aka Somalia, collapsed under the strife of a bitter civil war in the 1990s. In
the vacuum of this failed tyrannical state, a brutal dystopia
ensued by necessity. The helpless residents inflicted every imaginable kind of grisly atrocity on one another. This historical
specimen illustrates the sort of fallout that transpires in the
post-nihilistic wasteland—although this event particularly
involved only one tiny marginal nation in the brief span of
decades, whereas the forthcoming mega-fallout will involve
the most deeply entrenched super-ideologies that have ossified worldwide over the entire course of human history, e.g.,
religious thought itself.
Virtually all major earthly ideologies have entered the nihilistic stage in various degrees at the same time, and they all
converge to form an inescapable psychic black hole right now.
The only shelter lies in the abyss of one’s own head. Every
single human being from now into the future will experience
fallout in the abyss.

« 79 »

— Nihilism —
69. Joyful Pessimism.
Our Pessimism: the world has not the value which we
believed it to have […] In the first place, it seems of less
value: at first it is felt to be of less value—only in this
sense are we pessimists—that is to say, with the will to
acknowledge this transvaluation without reserve, and no
longer, as heretofore, to deceive ourselves and chant the
old old story.
It is precisely in this way that we find the pathos which
urges us to seek for new values.
—Nietzsche, Ibid, aph.32
Pessimism! This spookiest of judgements—society tries
to drum it out of children like a blacksmith tempers a lump
out of steel. On the main, a pessimist judges the world as
fundamentally irrational and anathema to their own moral
valuation. Is not every fair person a pessimist to some extent?
For a lucid thinker, should not pessimism remain the default
position unless proven otherwise, especially in retrospect of
human history. One can scarcely spy glimmers of human fraternity and ingenuity for more than but the briefest of instances, as if any time the light bulb above a human head lit
with a great idea, the tribe smashed it with a hammer to conserve ideology.
The author poses this conundrum for optimists: the cruelest of tragedy befalls innocent people every day, which disproves the hypothesis of cosmic justice.
Ah, but the grandest fortune can also strike innocent
people!—the optimist hollers gleefully.
But does that not only further disprove cosmic justice?
Whether the fate be tragic or fortunate, it does not discriminate between just and unjust people. If the tidings of
fate, for better or worse, do not proportionately reflect a person’s moral record, then why should anyone care about morality in the first place?
« 80 »

— Nihilism —
What is the point?
Now the reader recognizes why dear brother Nietzsche
excoriated morality as a psychological gimmick that humans
invented to feel special in the universe; it provides a narrative
of belief that the cosmos or the gods or karma owes them a
noble fate so they tiptoe around cracks on the sidewalk to
avoid bad luck.
Why do children born into the Islamic State, who die as
teenage suicide bombers, warrant that inhumane fate? Did
they deserve that? Ah, they must have a bad karmic record
from a past life!—condemns the orthodox Hindu.
Cosmic morality is the most ignoble superstition.
Personal morality is the most noble reality.
Anyone who enjoys the freedom of their own personal
moral valuation cannot be anything other than a joyful pessimist in a world full of nihilists! •

« 81 »

— Nihilism —

« 82 »

— The Abyss —

The Abyss

70. Panegyric to Nietzsche.
If when a person died, they re-experienced their life an
infinite number of times for eternity, what would a person
strive to do in the original life?
The answer tells the real morality of the person.
Nietzsche coined this idea eternal recurrence.
71. Panegyric to Heraclitus.
What if a life lasted only for as long as the person can
concentrate on the present moment?
If distraction caused immediate extinction, every member of the human race would become a realist just to survive.
Timothy calls this constant becoming in honor of Heraclitus.
72. Contrarian Dilemma.
What if morality required contrarian acts?
If a person needed to do evil in order to be good, would
a person still strive to be good?
If not, then what is the real value of morality?
The same premise stands for truth and beauty.
« 83 »

— The Abyss —
If a person needed to look ugly in order to be beautiful,
would a person still strive to be beautiful?
If not, then what is the real value of aesthetics?
Timothy conceived this contrarian dilemma. It reveals
whether a person abides by absolutism or perspectivism.
An idealist will slavishly adhere to their absolutist morality even if it necessitates an extreme contradiction, e.g, to
murder innocent people in the name of a purportedly peaceful religion. For a crystalline illustration of this in the Christian Bible: Yahweh insists that Abraham commit child sacrifice on his son Isaac, to which Abraham faithfully agrees.
While ultimately an angel intervenes to save the child, Abraham did not have the courage to condemn god as evil on the
spot and apostatize. This tale reveals the nihilism innate to
In contrast, a realist will identify the blatant contradiction at face value and decline the evil according to their perspectivist judgement.
73. Illusion of Civilization.
If a person could cause amnesia for anything in anyone
at any time, what would the person do to people in their life?
This further tells the real morality of a person.
If they would dupe unsuspecting people, i.e., act uncivilized, what does that say about the illusion of civilization?
Civility exists only insofar as the illusion of justice exists
74. Socrates on the Last Liberation.
Socrates declares: nobody can prove that they exist. They
can pound a fist on a table, or say a greeting, or shit in a toilet,
or feel waves of electricity pass across their neurology. But
what causes the fist to pound? A neural connection between
the brain and fist. But what causes the neural connection to
« 84 »

— The Abyss —
pass the data to do so in the first place? From whence does the
chain of causality originate?
The Fool shouts: a consciousness!
Socrates: where is a consciousness located exactly?
The Fool wagers again: the brain!
Socrates: so if a surgeon opens a brain, he will uncover a
consciousness embedded inside it like a pearl in a clamshell?
The Fool becomes flustered: no, I suppose not. But
maybe he will find it on the astral plane, the world behind
this world, and if not in the astral, then the world behind that
Socrates: so if an astral traveler scours their own astral
body, they will find a consciousness inlaid there like a butterfly caught in a net?
The Fool resigns: no, I guess not... I give up. Tell me
then, relentless gadfly, where does the soul exist?
Socrates: what if a consciousness is nothing more than
the deception of a self-aware reality? What if the soul does not
exist in any real way, but rather makes up the last illusion that
a fool must abandon to enter the Abyss? What if apostasy
from the religion of consciousness comprises the last liberation.
The Fool wails desperately: oh no, Socrates, please do
not expound such heresy. The other fools will call you mad,
and exile you into the wilderness. Where would you live?
Socrates: where else does The Devil live, if not the
Abyss? •

« 85 »

— The Abyss —

« 86 »

— Glossary —

ABYSS: anti-ideal of unbeing and unreality.
AESTHETICS: study of the valuation of form.
BEING: cosmic presence.
EPISTEMOLOGY: study of the valuation of knowledge.
EXISTENCE: essence of cosmic being.
EXISTENTIALISM: secular movement of philosophy that
views life and being as the grounds for epistemology, morality, and aesthetics in contrast to idealism or religion.
GOD: a hypothetical kind of being that contains perfect qualities, perfect form, and perfect presence; the trifecta of idealism; idealism to the third power.
IDEALISM: faith in absolute or perfect qualities of being.
IDEALITY: realm of ideas; term coined by author, traditionally called the realm of understanding or intellect.
MORALITY: study of the valuation of virtue.
MYSTICISM: religious tradition that qualifies life as suffering
and denies identity with the self through radical asceticism; a
kind of pessimistic nihilism.
NIHILISM: condition where the values of an ideology regress
upon themselves and the ideology becomes absurd; definition
conceived by author.
« 87 »

— Glossary —
ONTOLOGY: study of the qualities of being.
PESSIMISM: worldview that valuates existence as mainly irrational, evil, and ugly.
PHILOSOPHY: study of the qualities of being, with three
main branches that study valuations of epistemology, morality, and aesthetics.
REALITY: realm of empirical phenomena.
RELIGION: faith in and worship of a god or gods, often with
a community under the authority of a priesthood.
THEOGONY: speculation on the origin of god.
THEOLOGY: speculation on the qualities of god. •

« 88 »

— Bibliography —

Anselm, of Canterbury. Proslogion. Arthur J. Banning Press,
Bauer, Edgar. Critique’s Quarrel With Church & State. The
Young Hegelians. Edited by Lawrence S. Stepelevich.
Translated by Eric v.d. Luft. Humanity Books: 1997.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Mariner Books, 2008.
Donaghue, Timothy. Black Magick: The Left Hand Path. Become A Living God, 2016.
———. Black Magick Manifesto. Become A Living God,
Feuerbach, Ludwig. The Essence of Christianity. Translated by
George Eliot. Prometheus Books, 1989.
Harris, Sam. The End of Faith. W. W. Norton, 2005.
———. The Waking Up Podcast. SamHarris.com, 2016.
Heidegger, Martin. Nietzsche, Vol. 1 & 2. HarperOne, 1991.
———. Pathmarks. Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Heraclitus. Fragments. Philip Wheel Wright, 1959.
Islamic State, The. “Why We Hate You & Why We Fight
You.” Dabiq. 2016.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press, 1999.

« 89 »

— Bibliography —
———. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett
Publishing Company, June 15, 1993.
Karl Schmidt, The Individual, translated, annotated, and
with an introduction by Eric v.d. Luft (North Syracuse,
New York: Gegensatz Press, 2008), pp. 82-101.
Kierkegaard, Søren. Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. Barnes &
Noble, 2008.
———. The Antichrist: A Criticism of Christianity. Barnes &
Noble, 2006.
———. The Gay Science. Barnes & Noble, 2008.
———. The Will to Power. Barnes & Noble, 2008.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. Washington Square
Press, 1993.
———. Existentialism Is a Humanism. Paris, 1945.
Stirner, Max. The Ego and His Own. Dover Books, 2015.
United States of America, The. “Bill of Rights.” United States
Constitution. 1791. •

« 90 »

— The Individual —

The Individual


SUBVERSIVE crew of intellectual devils—lucky
strokes of fate—fraternized and boozed together in
the evening at Hippel’s Wine Bar in Berlin, Germany after the death of their cherished philosopher
Georg Hegel in the mid-1800s. They fancied themselves Die
Freien (The Free Ones) and became known as Young Hegelians by historians. As a casual group, no exact records exist
of all the men and women whom convened; however, numerous members rose to prominence through the eclectic, infernal subculture the club fostered. For example, both Karl
Marx and Friedrich Engels mingled there regularly in their
youth prior to their religious devotion to state-communism.
Besides them, several now-obscure but ingenious intellects
dropped their own literary atomic bombs. Two exemplars—
Karl Schmidt the author of The Individual and Max Stirner
the author of The Ego and His Own—waxed philosophical on
the theme of the individual or ego. In many ways, their avantgarde, unrepentant doctrines lucidly invoke the precepts of
The Devil—personified essence of devilhood—in a dissident,
take no prisoners style of discourse that undermined the conservative theological tradition of that time. But beyond their
« 91 »

— The Individual —
proto-postmodern, anti-idealist themes, Karl Schmidt in
particular penned his ideas in a blaze of acrobatically agile,
brain-twisting prose. The pluralistic manner in which he tap
dances back and forth between superlatives—as does Friedrich Nietzsche on occasion—might seem weird and even
contradictory to a casual reader, but beneath the aesthetic lies
a sound individualist philosophy. And for anyone who loves
literature, they will find nothing less than a feast of delights
and a newfound favorite.
While regrettably much of the written material by the
Young Hegelians has either not yet been translated to English, or has fallen through the cracks of history, the philosopher Eric von der Luft translated Schmidt’s The Individual
from its original German to English in 2008 for the first
time. So now with the greatest of honor, the reader will find
below an abridged passage of this obscure but exquisite dissertation.
The Individual by Karl Schmidt, 1846.


HE individual has not fallen from heaven and has not
arisen from earth. He is nothing divine and nothing
natural, but on the contrary, he is different from heaven and
earth. He is the result of the reciprocating actions of the universe.
"Names name thee not"—says the unique one, Max
Stirner. His name is Egoist. The individual just says: Names
name me not.
He has within himself the law of his activity, i.e., he has
no law, he is his own self, his entire nature. The individual
should not do anything in order that something may happen,
and neglect nothing, in order that something may not happen.
No point shines like the sun for the individual or serves as his
center: He has no "for," no light point, no source point from

« 92 »

— The Individual —
which he flows out and to which he flows back. But he represents himself so little as the way, the truth, and the life, not
as the light of the world, not as the starter and finisher of
faith in whose footsteps we should follow. He does not make
his world into an idol which all should worship, his thoughts
into almighty and always valid dicta which all should honor,
his interests into the interests of other human creatures, or
his opinions into norms for every one; all this so little that he
knows rather that others have and can have nothing mutual
or in common with him among all these named things, and
therefore cannot be in common with him...
He has in general nothing more to do with obligations,
with tasks, with ideals, with spirit; and is therefore the least
possible ideal of any of them. He wants to become the
founder of his own religion and sends no missionaries out.
The individual is not an idea, a fantasy, a thing of thought,
or an ideal, just as he does not run with any of them, and he
does not do so because he is not their opposite and is not
ensnared by being their opposite.
The individual, because he is not an idea, has no pathos.
He is apathetic, with neither passion nor fanaticism. He does
not appeal to authority or violence to make his way... because
he has no authority, no violence to do, no way to make... he
has no teaching. Because he himself believes nothing and
everything, and is so full of faith that he is a believer and an
infidel, a right-thinker and a dissenter, an orthodox and a
heretic all in one, he does not start any inquisitions to extort
the faith of others or to make the unfaithful either believe or
die. He allows everyone to be happy after their own fashion,
if he needs to get happy.
The individual is not the species because the species no
longer exists at all for the individual because, through this
designation, the individual is again transferred into a spiritworld and into a heaven because he is not the exemplar. The
« 93 »

— The Individual —
individual is not atheistic just because he is not theistic but because he has retired from the entire old world in which spirit
had to fight with non-spirit, heaven with hell, God with the
devil, the holy with the unholy, the infinite with the finite,
the eternal with the temporal...
The individual is neither good nor evil. He says with
Hamlet, "there is nothing either good or evil but thinking
makes it so." The individual stands in the middle among heroes of virtue, not virtuous and certainly not infatuated with
virtue... he lets suffering humanity—suffer. But he is also in
the middle of the tumult of vice, not as a servant of vice; he
is not a fanatic criminal and he does not live or move or die
as a believer in vice for vice's sake any more than he suffers
and dies as a believer in virtue for virtue's sake. Virtue and
vice are for the individual conceptless concepts and conceived
conceptlessness. For him there is no pure knowledge, and
thus in general no knowledge... thoughts are simply spooks.
The I puts itself ahead of the you. I am the expression of my
own self. I think only my thinking. The individual scoffs at
pure thinking. The individual is the ground and the measure
of knowledge and thought, i.e., there is in general for the individual no knowledge and no thinking... does not recognize
any uniquely individual truth as absolute, incontestable, and
immutable, but rather they lead everything in front of themselves, the exclusive and only valid tribunal... in order to turn
truth against itself even as clearly as its birth, and in order to
make truth into untruth and untruth into truth through this
tribunal... The individual worships no godly, heavenly configuration which has demanded that he be faithful and that
he must worship it fervently; the individual is groundless because he is fully fixed in his ground... he is his very own reason in everything and out of everything.
In the individual, love and hate fall together. He cuts and
"breaks open the buds of love"... He knows no "sympathy of
« 94 »

— The Individual —
kindred souls" and no "rapturous congeniality." The individual has no spiritual racetrack on which he must run and no
spiritual price according to which he must run.
The individual is not part of a greater whole that dwells
above and reigns over him, not a phase of the absolute, not a
citizen of the state, a member of society, a part of humanity,
etc. He is the death of all objective powers, even the most
severe among them, "world history," the last judgement, the
titanic battle of spirits, the law of human development, the
inviolable marble temple of fame, the glorification of God—
through his being he is the death, the annihilation, of judgement, battle, law, fame, glorification, and unveiling. The individual is not the salve of alien powers. He kneels before no
one. "He is the blast furnace" in which tough ore of "power"
is fused together with spiritual ore and brazen spirit, with
stony love and loving stone, and at the same time with
wooden iron and iron wood... He goes through all possible
configurations, as he so wills and because he so wills. He is
he himself. He is the individual... his word, i.e., his appearance, says I is Everywhere and only I is The Whole.
The individual is an incommensurable magnitude. No
measure measures him and no standard can be important to
him or for him. The individual himself is his own measure.
"I am myself alone." He is original, and being original is first
of all being actual, then being oneself, one's own, special,
unique—individual. He is nothing. He is all. He is, since he
is not, and he is not, since he is. This contradiction and he
himself as the resolution of this contradiction are his oxygen.
He is a Proteus who relentlessly reinvents himself in new
shapes and permeates life anew. He is always resolving himself, generating himself in his resolution and enjoying himself
in this process of resolution and generation. Each moment
he recreates himself. He is nothing restful, nothing at rest,
nothing fixed and finished, not a conclusion, but rather a
continuation, progress, advancing, becoming, being and non« 95 »

— The Individual —
being, and non-being and being; and nevertheless, in this infinite and finite din of roaring waves crowding one another
out, in this organic world and the mankilling storm—personified peace, the laughingstock of gods, blessed indifference
and indifferent blessedness. The individual in his process of
development is Lord God and The Devil, Christ and Antichrist, a humanist and a materialist, good and evil, ethical and
unethical, sensible and nonsensical, cultured and uncultured,
spirit and spiritlessness, heaven and hell, dreamer and the
peace of knowing, critic and believer, honor and dishonor,
veneration and contempt. He can burn, scorch, and blacken
like "the energetic sun" and be lukewarm, in love, and loving
like "the melancholy moon." He has the light of thinking and
darkness of thoughtlessness within himself. He can be absorbed in a Beethoven symphony and deify the substance of
feeling and laugh at art. He can move softly and obligingly in
the life of the state and pay the loyal citizen and in turn can
be called revolutionary or disturber of the peace. He can observe the laws of culture, swear allegiance to the city of the
Olympian gods, to spirit, to truth, freedom, love, but can also
be cultureless and spiritless. He can grasp the golden mean
and leap over all limits and boundaries into the extreme. He
can cry with the criers and mourn with the mourners, be nonsensical with the nonsensical and serious with the serious,
and at the same time rejoice among the mourners, joke
among the series, and be smart among the nonsensical. He
can be unfree in freedom and free in unfreedom... and appear
as weak as a child or as worn out as an old man, as sentimental
as a woman in love and as unmanly as a man in love. Truth
is the creation of his head. Love is the creation of his heart.
Will is the thermometer and barometer of his life force. His
life is his deed. His fate is his character. The individual
rightly forges his own happiness with bold, ingenious, powerful strokes. The individual is individual... the correlated
pairs, reciprocal negations, electrical poles are all indicated in
« 96 »

— The Individual —
the realm and domain of spirit and are consumed by the individual in the certainty of his supreme power. The individual
is the totality, the complex, the shining center in the chaotic
web of his properties. His properties are his relief, the musical
vibrations of the root note, the sound of keynotes, the gleam
of his strong character expression or his obstinate physiognomy, the echo of his resolute melody, the clarity of particularly individual nuances of color, the expression of living determinacy. Yet the properties of the individual are also the
aspect of a tabula rasa, the appearance of absolute caprice...
bundles of interruptions, outbreaks of volcanic unrest, abrupt
hurrahs of orgiastic rejoicing. The ungraspable, the unapproachable, who draws back from every touch or rather tolerates every tough because no touch can touch him. Thus this
individual is the existent volubility: everywhere and nowhere,
taken in and taken away by nothing, not even by himself because every instant he strikes himself dead and eats himself
Personified one-sidedness and admirable all-sidedness,
completeness in himself and exemplary man of the world, the
most diverse nuancing and the horrible monotony, the richest fullness of life's materials and the poverty of all: one
uniquely individual source, one uniquely individual gush, one
uniquely individual arrangement—able to accept all forms in
all variants of this same theme in all virtuosity.
The most widely variegated play of colors resounds in
him: in this fresh fullness, in this inextinguishable energy, in
this immortal shamelessness, in this high pathos, in this flexibility and excitability. The individual does not love: His love
today can be hate tomorrow and his hate today love tomorrow—and yet he is the only love that is actual, which is what
love is supposed to be.
The individual is not free; he is the existence of freedom... to be human means to be God. The individual, who
on the one side is truth, freedom, love, and genius, is the
« 97 »

— The Individual —
apostasy of the common interest in truth, freedom, love, and
genius. He is an organic world in himself—this inorganic being; independent of external, foreign determinations, he
freely creates from within himself his appropriate forms of
expression and conditions and illuminates them from all sides
until they are inside the most uniquely individual being... the
living dialectic.
The individual is "the unique one," no longer the spiritualized, mendacious, Stirnerian unique one; not the unique
one who is thus a unique one because he is placed with others
in comparison with them or not in comparison with them
and therefore in identity of non-identity with them; but rather this unique one, this "I here" who has no "other" and
who is not comparable with anything outside himself. Leibniz said: "There cannot be two identical things; since if they
were not differentiated, they would not be two, but one and
the same." That—as well as its opposite—is valid for the individual. He is peculiarity through and through, the uniquely
individual, independent of production wholly and completely—he himself—his own core, his jumping-off point, an
original: Without originality he would not be himself. The
individual is beyond comparison and incomparable; incomparable with the great and grand appearances of the world,
incomparable with the greatest virtuosos of religion and art,
incomparable with the most distinguished philosophers and
statesmen. He stands so far and so deep and so peculiarly
above and beneath them that he cannot be compared with
them at all, because they have collapsed before him in foam
and bubbles—so peculiarly that not only the greatest, but also
the least, are compared with him, since the individual brings
honor to even the tiniest being because he has been in disgrace with the great figures of world history as well as with
the insignificant figures of world history, i.e., because he is
beyond them both. Before him "the series of thinkers" has

« 98 »

— The Individual —
turned pale. He stands on the wreckage of this realm with his
motto: "I am myself alone."
The individual does not exist for an other. For an other
being denotes selflessness. Whatever is for an other, the other
can make out of it whatever he wants. The individual is more
than something that exists for an other; he is for himself and
he takes and uses everything of the other for himself. The
individual tramples underfoot anything that contradicts the
individual: Everything must yield to his being; everything
drowns in the well of his life. He allows nothing to come into
himself unless he has transformed it into himself, into his
own life, and has used it for his life, for new stimulation, excitement, agitation, transformation, and metamorphosis.
The individual manufactures everything that he meets or that
is given to him for his individual expression. Everything is
penetrated by the touch of the individual, by his electrical
spark. The individual has himself everywhere. Whatever the
individual senses, thinks, or perceives, he senses, thinks, and
perceives only himself. For the individual all measure is the
stuff of sculpture and the stuff of culture. For the individual,
for the demon who gnaws at everything with his wholeness,
width and breadth and size and length—the main point concerns both his enjoyment of his force. He says: "Where one
stands, the other must yield."
The individual has his joy, his pleasure, always in himself
and in all his thinking and doing, his living and moving, in
all his being; he mirrors himself everywhere and in everything, lives as he feels, lovingly gazes at and promotes only
himself, his being, his existence. To him everything is a
means to stimulate his joy, his self-mirroring, since everything is his and he makes everything his own. Nothing can
disturb his joy because nothing can withstand or endure his
sharp glance.
You ask where the world of the individual lies, beyond
the Himalayas, or beyond the ocean, on the moon, or in
« 99 »

— The Individual —
Heaven. I hear your discourse, dear spirit-human, and in order to give you no answer, I answer you: The world of the
individual is and exists with and within the individual. You
ask whether there can be, will be, or are other or several individuals besides. Your question is the question of monstrous
waste and selflessness, of humans who have no strength and
no energy. The individual who is everything in himself and
has everything outside himself cannot, cannot answer this
question because it cannot be answered. Oh, I see how you
rejoice over the roast meat. It's not too hot yet. The joke will
be spoiled for you. You think that I have now "explained"
what the individual is any you want me now to thrash him to
bits and flay him to death like a dogmatist or a critic would.
Don't bother. I cannot give any characteristic of this individual because therein cannot exhaust the absolute fullness and
the absolute void of the individual and because it does not
matter to me that you "know," or rather it matters much that
you "do not know" whether I am and who I am and who I
am not. The individual is critique, not pure, not critical, not
historical, but individual, particular, unique critique. The individual cannot be grasped and cannot be had, tolerates no
account of himself, and no one can give an account of him.
"I am myself alone." •

« 100 »

— Excursions —



F the reader has enjoyed the iconoclastic and subversive themes of this confessional-style philosophical
treatise, then they might like the author’s preexisting
literature too. Timothy has penned a 413-page atomic bomb
entitled Black Magick: The Left Hand Path as well as a 33page carpet bomb called Black Magick Manifesto—both available through Become A Living God.

« 101 »

— Cosmic Blaze —

This universe, which is the same for all, has not been
made by any god or man, but it always has been, is, and
will be—an ever-living fire, kindling itself by regular
measures and going out by regular measures.
—Heraclitus, Fragment 2

« 102 »