From Dialogue Four of Five on Race: Corruption Defined — Corruption Defined
Onitaset Kumat: We have come to the conclusion, Knobeco, do you recall what prompted this discussion?
Knobeco: Absolutely. I wondered if it was true what they say: That there is only one race–the human race.
Onitaset Kumat: And what have you so far learned?
Knobeco: I learned that different people have different cultures, for culture is a continuity from ancestry, and all of us have different ancestry. Further I learned that oppression is a means toward moulding and cultural oppression is a means toward moulding toward a culture. Lastly, I learned that corruption is a cultural oppression toward a culture not fitting a person. These four lessons were definitions.
Onitaset Kumat: Yes they were. But also each was true to reality.
Knobeco: I agree. One would not call something cultural that were not continued from ancestry. One would not call something oppressive lest it moulded one in some way. One would not call something cultural oppression lest it moulded to a culture. One would not call something corrupted lest there were a purity to reference.
Onitaset Kumat: Correct. But let us return to “Oppression” for a moment. Oppression has a negative connotation. Correct?
Onitaset Kumat: Do you know why?
Knobeco: Onitaset Kumat, you are the Master of Ethics. You have been the first to define Morality in the English language. You are a true Philosopher-King. You have spoken of Immorality as the use of Military Capital in want of Civil Capital. Oppression is a moulding which can be both limitation and valuation–military capitals. Clearly then Oppression can be Immoral hence it’s negative connotation.
Onitaset Kumat: Superbly stated. But more simply stated, one can wrongly oppress.
Onitaset Kumat: But from an ethical standpoint, it begs what is the proper “oppression” or moulding. So to speak, to limit and value one’s identity seems to usually be wrong, but certain identities are culturally right, right?
Knobeco: Absolutely. “The means towards and ends of Identity” is Cultural Capital. One can be Amoral and exchange Cultural Capital for another Civil Capital. There’s no immorality (or morality) as long as Military Capital isn’t involved. Ergo, one can be amorally “oppressed.” The clearest example of amoral Cultural Capital or amoral identity in “mannerisms, behavior and appearance” is being honest. An amoral “oppression” then is a moulding of another to be honest. It seems simple. But it’s quite complex.
Onitaset Kumat: No, Knobeco, remember “As something appears it is.” In terms of Amorality, the most preferred is the Spiritual Amorality. That is when the Civil Capitals are exchanged for the Spiritual Capitals.
Knobeco: I can see that. For instance, one’s friends should be spiritually complementary; one’s lovers, spiritually complementary; life’s work, spiritually complementary. More than anything, that fulfills my namesake “Know Thyself, Be Thyself, Complete Thyself.”
Onitaset Kumat: Yes. Then it becomes of us to identify whether there are aggregates of people which have identical spiritual identities.
Onitaset Kumat: Is it fair to suppose that those in power will impose their culture?
Knobeco: It is not always true, but certainly it’s fair to suppose. For to a certain degree each power imposes its own culture lest it is corrupted.
Onitaset Kumat: And is it fair to say that their most agreeable followers are spiritually in accordance with that imposition?
Knobeco: Absolutely. The most agreeable to a culture are not corrupted but pure. In their purity they are in accordance with the imposed culture.
Onitaset Kumat: Ah, so then let us be more specific. Is it fair to presume that the thousands of Occidentals who gathered for a lynching of an Original were in accordance with the barbaric act?
Knobeco: The pictures are indisputable. They smile and laugh at the pain of our ancestors. In their purity, they were happy to attend such tribalistic barbarism.
Onitaset Kumat: But were we content in attendance? Whether forced to watch or forced to die?
Onitaset Kumat: So then this is a sign of Occidental and Original spiritual discordance, no?
Onitaset Kumat: How about an Original neighborhood being controlled by Orientals and Occidentals. Do Originals find it disagreeable?
Knobeco: By normal surveys, yes. Most of us find it disagreeable and wretched. The ABS’ efforts against it are widely regarded as noble, for we raise our consciousness toward turning our resources to our benefit.
Onitaset Kumat: What about Orientals and Occidentals, do they not find it agreeable?
Knobeco: Of course they enjoy it, lest they with the power would not do it. Though you do not see Original shops in Oriental or Occidental neighborhoods. It goes to show that they love their power over us, we don’t love their power over us, but they would scorn if we had power over them.
Onitaset Kumat: Yes, though this is very general.
Knobeco: Quite. Only foolish Orientals and Occidentals would find our exploitation of them agreeable. Foolish or corrupted. It’s best then to discuss the pure; and Orientals steeped in Orientalism and Occidental steeped in Occidentalism would find it disagreeable for Originals to exploit Orientals or Occidentals.
Onitaset Kumat: Yet some of our people seem to conceive that there exists good amongst these other people!
Knobeco: Now wait a moment, Onitaset Kumat! Why do you say that there’s no good amongst them? Is that something to honestly say?
Onitaset Kumat: It’s not something to say and I do not say that there’s no good amongst them. But the lesson above easily illustrates one simple fact. We have a different definition of good amongst the races. That is, “good” is racially subjective, thus an Original can not ethically judge an Occidental or Oriental or vise-versa. Always the Orginals need to regard the Oriental and Occidental as different and yearn to separate lest the latter groups will visit, in their view of justice, injustices on Original people.
Knobeco: I see it. A lynching is horrific to the Originals, but an event to take children to for the Occidentals. Or Original enterprises in an Oriental community is forbidden, but Oriental enterprises in an Original community is normal. I see it. “Goodness” is not universal among “races” or “racially objective.”
Onitaset Kumat: True, because “Spiritual Capital” is “the means toward and ends of racial asili”–Asili being the ideological core of a race. In other words, we come to define “Race” as “the ideological unity of a people.”
Knobeco: Fascinating though general. Can you be more Specific?
Onitaset Kumat: The Original Race, Africans, have an ideology of Restorism; the Oriental Race, Asians, Contractualism; the Occidental Race, Europeans, Tribalism. I explain these further under “Lore.” In essence though the races differ spiritually (and thus ideologically [hence the statement on the aspiritual Occidental is untrue, instead the Occidental is differently spiritual from the Original). In other words, murdering someone for theft isn’t wrong to an Occidental if it means establishing his tribe as dominant. Becoming corrupted by Occidentalism will also make Originals more tribal, ergo the explanation behind our pride in modern made-up countries.
Knobeco: I see. So you taught culture to show that there were different asili’s. You taught oppression to show that people are moulded. You taught cultural oppression to show that moulding can be toward an asili. And you taught corruption to show that, that asili can be mismatched. In essence this whole dialogue sought to define race according to the different racial asilis.
Onitaset Kumat: You catch on.
Knobeco: So I see it now. Race purity means “ideological purity” and propounders of “race first” are propounders of “ideology first.” For all intents and purposes, please explain Restorism and thus the African Race.
Onitaset Kumat: Though well documented under “Originalism,” the African is the human which seeks, unlike the other races, to restore Africa and African people. This is the fundamental basis of all African people, but especially those in touch with their inner spirit. Ergo, three Patrons of the African Blood Siblings, Nanny, Nzingha and Taharqo sought restorism in some way or another: Nanny restored Africa in Jamaica, teaching traditional ways in the high mountains of Maroon town; Nzingha restored Africa in Angola, fighting against our enslavement while reducing the casualties of her citizenry; Taharqo restored Africa in KMT, coming from Nubia he re-opened the closed temples after the Persians invaded in respect to the shared ancestry of African people. The ideology can be seen in most of our ancestors and in all of our uncorrupted behavior.
Knobeco: So this is the nature of Africans? To restore Africa and African people? To what in particular?
Onitaset Kumat: God. “As above, so below.”
Subscribe; Other posts in this series:
Dialogue One of Five on Race: Culture Defined — “Culture” Defined
Dialogue Two of Five on Race: Oppression Defined — “Oppression” Defined
Dialogue Three of Five on Race [ . . .] — “Cultural Oppression”
Dialogue Four of Five on Race: Corruption Defined — Corruption Defined
Dialogue Five of Five on Race: Race Defined — Spiritual Capital