In the Service of our Ancestors and African Love,
Listen Seeker, I come in peace,
“The problem with Europeans and Asians is Europeans and Asians.” — Onitaset Kumat
Earlier, engaging with the people on the streets, I came across a young woman who mentioned her impatience for when Occupy Wall Street would resume so as to participate. I explained to her the futility of her passion, but she without arguments resisted the sense. It’s not her fault. She is common amongst us: Altruistic without a proper indigenous avenue or philosophical core. She does not know the above truth because you have not built an African Blood Siblings Community Center for her to have received its wisdom. Build; she is not alone. Write the ABS for more directions. In the meantime, read the below, a dialogue for the television program. It’s a bit philosophically off (because it’s earlier than the race dialogue.) Read future posts for a more updated sense of philosophy.
Why should an African support the Occupy Wall Street movement, a White movement?
By Onitaset Kumat
Onitaset Kumat: Whitman, why should an African support the Occupy Wall Street movement, a White movement?
Whitman: Movements are not White or Black: they are humane and inhumane; enslaving and liberating; not White or Black. The White man’s interest is the Black man’s interest. We fight for the same things: better schools and better jobs. To express the argument in any other way borders on an unkindness that would better be eradicated from society than kept herein. It is a regressive way of thinking that allows one to opine that movements are White and therefore Black people ought not support them.
Onitaset Kumat: You have said a lot. You have said that movements are neither White nor Black. You have said that the White man’s interests are the Black man’s interests. You have said that Blacks and Whites fight for better schools and better jobs. You have said that even claiming otherwise is unkind. You have finished that it is regressive to opine that Blacks ought not support White movements. Each of these statements are wrong.
To begin, you have said that movements are neither White nor Black. Clearly, there are White movements: White supremacy groups are White movements, but obviously we talk about movements more akin to “Occupy Wall Street” where Whites gather to promote White issues under a White philosophy.
Whitman: Yes, let us disregard White supremacy groups and focus on “Leftist” Whites. There is no question that Africans ought not support White “Rightist” groups. Still, you write “White Philosophy” as if “Philosophy,” a pursuit of truth, had a race.
Onitaset Kumat: Philosophy does have a race. There are three races: The Original, the Oriental and the Occidental; each has a different philosophy, Original Philosophy, Oriental Philosophy and Occidental Philosophy. The issues of a people are on par with their philosophy. The Occidental Philosophy does not accomodate to the African’s needs. In fact, the Occidental Philosophy does not accomodate to anyone’s needs. Nevertheless, that Occidental Philosophy is the guidepost of movements under White leadership, necessarily, the movements are White, necessarily. Therefore movements can be White.
On your next point, you have argued that the White man’s interests are akin to the Black man’s. Again, the Rightists will disagree with you. However, matters become deeper in that the Leftist too disagrees with you. For instance, who was one of the most important Leftists in human history? Karl Marx. But whose ideas were Karl Marx’s ideas based off of? Hegel. And what was Hegel famous for saying? That Africans are without a history. Therefore, Leftism at its core rejects African history: this is very much against the Black man’s interest. And problems are much deeper too.
For instance, your next point is that Whites and Blacks fight for the same things, better schools and better jobs. Already, it has been said that the White movements are uninterested in African history, therefore the schools for which these Whites fight are not on par with the demands of African people. Continuing on jobs, the global economy for which Whites operate follow the Occidental Philosophies of Xenophobia, genocide, mysoginy and hatred. These invariably injure African people–which is not a concern of White movements. They want better jobs at home at the expense of worse employment abroad. Much like a pirate would want a better gun to secure his wealth with. The Black man does not fight for a job–he fights for the unity of his continent.
Now, later you mention that looking at movements as either White or Black is unkind. However, even this statement, though irrelevant to the concern of African support for a White movement, touches on a false outlook. See, Occidental Philosophy views kindness differently from Original Philosophy. The African upon seeing a man with food stuck in his teeth wonders whether to inform the man. We are in conflict with our thoughts. Our Philosophy says that such a gesture is kind, but Occidental Philosophy tells us otherwise. So to speak, kindness isn’t telling the truth in Occidental Philosophy but being unoffensive, uncontroversial and uninterested. That said, to you, reducing your movement as White would be ‘unkind’ however I see it as perfectly kind: I do not agree with Occidental Philosophy and I would be better to be honest of it then to lie at my own expense.
We finish now with your view that it is regressive to opine that Africans ought not support White movements. Your misunderstanding lies in what you believe to be progessive and what you believe to be regressive. The African has no vested interest in a continuation of Occidental Philosophy: it is xenophobic and racist. Therefore, the African has no interest in White movements. He does not progress under White leadership regardless of whether that White person is Rightist or Leftist: Both groups are racist, sexist and ‘classist.’ Thereby, in truth, any support to a White movement is ‘regressive’ rather than the other way around.
These are how your claims are false.
Whitman: I see. Your argument is that the root of a movement is its Philosophy and the African ought follow an African philosophy rather than a European philosophy because after all these years European philosophy has to be racist, sexist and classist and none of these are in anyone’s interest. You are very right. No European philosopher has been ‘progessive’ in the truest sense.
Onitaset Kumat: I am glad that you agree. I would recommend, in addition, that Europeans buckle down to Original Philosophy. In this way, the Europeans may be liberated from their self-imposed shackles.
Subscribe and See:
Blood Coltan Video and Political Strategy — Modern Abolitionism
Of Prime Access–The ethics of Africans marketing for Europeans — Selling Ourselves
Dr. Ben on “The Symbolism” – Kemetic Symbolism
Originalism – Our Philosophy
Brother Ashra Kwesi speaks — Dr. Ben’s Protege