Abir Taha—a Lebanese diplomat, Aryan supremacist, anti-Semite, and esoteric Nietzschean ideologue with a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the Sorbonne—frames her supposed masterwork, The Epic of Arya: In Search of the Sacred Light (2016). According to Taha, this self-described “masterpiece” is not just a sacred mythic narrative reclaiming primordial Indo-European spirituality for the modern Aryan soul: it is “the spiritual bible: it heals, awakens, transforms” (Taha 2015). The Epic is so popular that Arktos, among the world’s most influential fascist publishers, has released a second edition.
Written in poetic (if turgidly grandiloquent) prose, the text revives both ancient symbols of Aryan spirituality and Nazi inventions like the Black Sun (a symbol of esoteric fascism and SS mythology). It frames the journey of its goddess heroine, Arya, as one of eternal return, transfiguration, and redemption. But the Epic is not merely a reactionary mythopoeia; it is also philosophically entangled with Taha’s reading of Nietzsche, particularly as outlined in her Nietzsche’s Coming God or the Redemption of the Divine (2013). There, Taha positions Nietzsche as a prophet of an immanent, Dionysian divinity that redeems the sacred through rejecting metaphysical stasis in favor of becoming. Yet, within the Epic, Taha paradoxically seeks to restore “order” and “truth” through the very structures Nietzsche most vehemently critiques: essentialized identities, eternal hierarchies, and sacred origins.
This tension invites us to explore Taha’s mythic project through the lens of Nietzsche's complex relationship with logic—a relationship that recent scholars such as Steven Burgess and Steven D. Hales have carefully scrutinized. Burgess (2019) emphasizes Nietzsche’s rejection of the “atomism of language”: the idea that language can carve the world at its joints into stable, self-identical units amenable to formal logical operations. Nietzsche’s mature philosophy, according to Burgess, advances a Heraclitean ontology of becoming, wherein both language and logic are implicated in a falsifying reification of realities that are, rather, in ceaseless flux. Hales (1996) similarly highlights Nietzsche’s ambivalence toward logic, pointing out Nietzsche’s belief that—while logic may be indispensable for human life and communication—its fundamental principles (such as identity and non-contradiction) are rooted in alleged “fictions” we have invented to render the world intelligible.
Against this backdrop, this paper positions the Epic as an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable: to advance a sacred, eternal “Truth” (71) while claiming fidelity to Nietzsche’s anti-metaphysical framework (Mitchell 2017). Taha draws on Nietzsche’s reverence for myth as a life-affirming, creative force that can generate meaning beyond the ruins of Enlightenment rationalism, echoing his affirmation of Dionysian becoming. Yet paradoxically, she anchors this process in fixed notions of “Eternal Religion” and the “real, Eternal God” (183). Such essentialization contrasts starkly with Nietzsche’s later writings, in which, Burgess observes, “being is an empty fiction” (2019, 159), and language itself fails to secure any stable referent.
Moreover, Taha’s fascist reimagining of myth deploys language as if its symbols were logically coherent and fixed, presupposing precisely the kind of linguistic and conceptual atomism Nietzsche deconstructed. In the Epic, terms like “Aryan soul,” “divine race,” and “sacred law” function as if they point to unambiguous, self-identical entities. Yet Nietzsche's critique of logic, as Hales underscores, is founded on the insight that “the belief in things is the precondition of our belief in logic” (1996, 825). By positing immutable categories like “Aryan” or “divine order,” Taha’s work depends upon precisely the same reified conceptual framework Nietzsche associates with the metaphysical residues of God.
Nevertheless, Taha appears partially aware of this problem. In Nietzsche’s Coming God, she portrays the divine not as a transcendent, fixed being but as an emergent process of becoming—a “coming God” who unfolds historically and spiritually through human will. This notion resonates with Nietzsche’s own declarations of becoming, yet even here Taha’s fascist metaphysics seem to require a return to rigid hierarchies and eternal truths, thus short-circuiting the flux she claims to embrace.
Ultimately, the Epic functions as an illustrative case of what happens when Nietzsche’s insights into the instability of logic and language are appropriated into a political and metaphysical project seeking stability, purity, and permanence. Taha's religious mythos simultaneously leverages Nietzsche’s critique of modernity while betraying his ontology of becoming through its reliance on conceptual fixity. In this, The Epic stands as a poignant example of what Burgess warns against: the reification of language into “atomistic units that resist the dynamic flux of life” (2019, 156), now transposed from the philosophical to the spiritual-political plane.
In a broader sense, this analysis highlights an underexplored dimension of contemporary continental debates around logic: the risk that post-structuralist critiques of logical form, meaning, and identity can be co-opted into reactionary political and metaphysical projects. Thinkers like Jacques Derrida famously interrogated the metaphysical assumptions embedded in Western logic—such as fixed identity, binary opposition, and presence—arguing that these structures conceal the play of différance, the endless deferral of meaning. While Derrida’s deconstruction aims to unsettle totalizing systems and resist essentialism, Taha’s work demonstrates how similar critiques of logical form can be strategically misappropriated to justify essentialist, supremacist ideologies.
The Epic thus rests on a tensely paradoxical fusion: a rhetoric of becoming, flux, and spiritual transfiguration (which echoes both Nietzschean and post-structuralist vocabularies) is mobilized in service of restoring an allegedly eternal, pure Aryan essence. Thus, while Derridean deconstruction sought to disrupt foundationalist thinking, Taha’s Aryan supremacism redeploys the collapse of traditional metaphysical guarantees as an opportunity to mythologize and absolutize racial identity under the guise of spiritual rebirth. In this way, the Epic exemplifies how the destabilization of logic and meaning—originally intended as tools for resisting domination—can instead be weaponized to fortify new forms of exclusionary, hierarchical, and authoritarian fascist mythmaking.
By examining the Epic as a case study in the dangerous afterlives of anti-logic discourse, this paper contributes to ongoing conversations about whether continental philosophy’s sustained critique of logic and metaphysics, particularly via figures like Nietzsche and Derrida (Beiner 2018; Bornedal 2024; Latour 2004; McManus 2019; Wolin 2004), has inadvertently opened conceptual space for the resurgence of reactionary political theology dressed in the language of postmodern flux.
This paper examines The Epic of Arya, a work by Aryan supremacist, Sorbonne-trained philosopher, and esoteric Nietzschean ideologue Abir Taha, as a case study in the fascist appropriation of continental philosophy’s critique of logic and metaphysics. Drawing on her idiosyncratic reading of Nietzsche, Taha advances a mythic vision of eternal sacred Truth underpinning Aryan identity, paradoxically invoking Nietzschean themes of becoming while reinstating the very metaphysical fixity Nietzsche resists. Situating The Epic of Arya alongside scholarly accounts of Nietzsche’s rejection of logic and metaphysics, and broader concerns about the co-option of post-structuralist thought by reactionary movements, this paper argues that Taha’s work exemplifies how anti-rationalist philosophical currents can be weaponized to support discourses of hierarchy, discrimination, and exclusion. By extension, it contributes to ongoing academic dialogue about whether continental philosophy’s critique of logic inadvertently creates conceptual space for the resurgence of authoritarian political theologies under the guise of postmodern flux.