Listen Siblings, I come in peace,
“[He is the one] whose heart is informed about these things which would be otherwise ignored, the one who is clear-sighted when he is deep into a problem, the one who is moderate in his actions, who penetrates ancient writings, whose advice is [sought] to unravel complications, who is really wise, who instructed his own heart, who stays awake at night as he looks for the right paths, who surpasses what he accomplished yesterday, who is wiser than a sage, who brought himself to wisdom, who asks for advice and sees to it that he is asked advice.” — Inscription of Antef (12th Dynasty KMT)
Does Socrates belong to the African race? I do not know. I’ve seen an ancient image of him but “our senses serve to affirm, not to know.” However, importantly, did Socrates’ beliefs belong to the African race? He along with his pupil Plato and Plato’s pupil Aristotle were assuredly students. Plato claims to record Socrates’ words in “The Republic.” We already know “The Republic” has a stolen authorship. We already know Socrates’ claim to wisdom is meaningful but stolen. You will now know how deeply this important concept of Philosopher-King, a title fitting Onitaset Kumat, was stolen and corrupted. Below, I intersperse the famous dialogue with quotations straight from the temples in Wa’set which Dr. Ben had already shown as the center of Dynastic Nile Valley Education. I show you too the errors of Plato and point you to other works such as Notes on Marimba Ani’s “Yurugu” Lecture and Occidentalism. Read these works then return to understand this work more plainly. “What is Philosophy?” by Asar Imhotep and the Dialogue on Race Series are excellent additions. We are building African Blood Siblings Community Centers to make this love, knowledge and wisdom more widespread. Our people already mistakenly learn of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle as wise. Onitaset Kumat is wiser than the three (thus wiser than every European) and he freely teaches you like the Philosopher above quoted. Write the ABS to see how you can help build for our people. Subscribe, share, love.
Plato’s Philosopher King, our Cosmic Wisdom and Onitaset Kumat
By Onitaset Kumat
To claim oneself a Philosopher-King isn’t unreasonable. A Philosopher-King is he who defined “Goodness.” I am the first to do so in the English language. Below is an excerpt from “The Republic” by Plato. I intersperse it with quotations from our ancient temple. I also hint at when Plato teaches errors in recopying our ancient wisdom and instead corrupts it with his Occidentalism–tribalism. I do this because “If the Master teaches what is error, the disciple’s submission is slavery; if he teaches truth, this submission is ennoblement.” This quotation along with all bold quotations below are from the Temple of Wa’set. The italicized quotations are from “The Republic” by Plato as seen here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm. See how closely and deliberately Socrates parallels our wisdom. This stolen knowledge can be returned to our people through your actively building African Blood Siblings Community Centers, for “Peace is the fruit of activity, not of sleep.” See below.
Inasmuch as philosophers only are able to grasp the eternal and unchangeable, and those who wander in the region of the many and variable are not philosophers, I must ask you which of the two classes should be the rulers of our State?
Two tendencies govern human choice and effort, the search after quantity and the search after quality. They classify mankind. Some follow Maat, others seek the way of animal instinct.
[For more on Maat, see Maat: The Egyptian Code of Cardinal Virtues as translated by Theophile Obenga]
And how can we rightly answer that question?
Whichever of the two are best able to guard the laws and institutions of our State—let them be our guardians.
Very good.
Neither, I said, can there be any question that the guardian who is to keep anything should have eyes rather than no eyes?
There can be no question of that.
And are not those who are verily and indeed wanting in the knowledge of the true being of each thing, and who have in their souls no clear pattern, and are unable as with a painter’s eye to look at the absolute truth and to that original to repair, and having perfect vision of the other world to order the laws about beauty, goodness, justice in this, if not already ordered, and to guard and preserve the order of them—are not such persons, I ask, simply blind?
Our senses serve to affirm, not to know.
Truly, he replied, they are much in that condition.
And shall they be our guardians when there are others who, besides being their equals in experience and falling short of them in no particular of virtue, also know the very truth of each thing?
There can be no reason, he said, for rejecting those who have this greatest of all great qualities; they must always have the first place unless they fail in some other respect.
Suppose then, I said, that we determine how far they can unite this and the other excellences.
By all means.
In the first place, as we began by observing, the nature of the philosopher has to be ascertained. We must come to an understanding about him, and, when we have done so, then, if I am not mistaken, we shall also acknowledge that such an union of qualities is possible, and that those in whom they are united, and those only, should be rulers in the State.
What do you mean?
Let us suppose that philosophical minds always love knowledge of a sort which shows them the eternal nature not varying from generation and corruption.
Knowledge is consciousness of reality. Reality is the sum of the laws that govern nature and of the causes from which they flow.
Agreed.
And further, I said, let us agree that they are lovers of all true being; there is no part whether greater or less, or more or less honourable, which they are willing to renounce; as we said before of the lover and the man of ambition.
Envious greed must govern to possess and ambition must possess to govern.
True.
And if they are to be what we were describing, is there not another quality which they should also possess?
What quality?
Truthfulness: they will never intentionally receive into their mind falsehood, which is their detestation, and they will love the truth.
Yes, that may be safely affirmed of them.
‘May be,’ my friend, I replied, is not the word; say rather ‘must be affirmed:’ for he whose nature is amorous of anything cannot help loving all that belongs or is akin to the object of his affections.
Right, he said.
And is there anything more akin to wisdom than truth?
How can there be?
Can the same nature be a lover of wisdom and a lover of falsehood?
Never.
The true lover of learning then must from his earliest youth, as far as in him lies, desire all truth?
The seed cannot sprout upwards without simultaneously sending roots into the ground.
Assuredly.
But then again, as we know by experience, he whose desires are strong in one direction will have them weaker in others; they will be like a stream which has been drawn off into another channel.
The seed includes all the possibilities of the tree.
The seed will develop these possibilities, however, only if it receives corresponding energies from the sky.
True.
He whose desires are drawn towards knowledge in every form will be absorbed in the pleasures of the soul, and will hardly feel bodily pleasure—I mean, if he be a true philosopher and not a sham one.
Physical consciousness is indispensable for the achievement of knowledge.
[Plato here slips in Error: See Notes on Marimba Ani’s “Yurugu” Lecture.]
That is most certain.
Such an one is sure to be temperate and the reverse of covetous; for the motives which make another man desirous of having and spending, have no place in his character.
For every joy there is a price to be paid.
You will free yourself when you learn to be neutral and follow the instructions of your heart without letting things perturb you. This is the way of Maat.
[For more on Maat, see Maat: The Egyptian Code of Cardinal Virtues as translated by Theophile Obenga]
Very true.
Another criterion of the philosophical nature has also to be considered.
What is that?
There should be no secret corner of illiberality; nothing can be more antagonistic than meanness to a soul which is ever longing after the whole of things both divine and human.
True sages are those who give what they have, without meanness and without secret!
Altruism is the mark of a superior being.
Most true, he replied.
Then how can he who has magnificence of mind and is the spectator of all time and all existence, think much of human life?
[Plato here again slips in Error: See Notes on Marimba Ani’s “Yurugu” Lecture.
Also read Occidentalism]
He cannot.
Or can such an one account death fearful?
No indeed.
Then the cowardly and mean nature has no part in true philosophy?
Certainly not.
Or again: can he who is harmoniously constituted, who is not covetous or mean, or a boaster, or a coward—can he, I say, ever be unjust or hard in his dealings?
Organization is impossible unless those who know the laws of harmony lay the foundation.
[Further read “The Law of Harmony.”]
Impossible.
Then you will soon observe whether a man is just and gentle, or rude and unsociable; these are the signs which distinguish even in youth the philosophical nature from the unphilosophical.
To teach one must know the nature of those whom one is teaching.
[Plato slips here in Error again. See Notes on Marimba Ani’s “Yurugu” Lecture ]
True.
There is another point which should be remarked.
What point?
Whether he has or has not a pleasure in learning; for no one will love that which gives him pain, and in which after much toil he makes little progress.
To know means to record in one’s memory; but to understand means to blend with the thing and to assimilate it oneself.
[Plato here slips in Error again]
Certainly not.
And again, if he is forgetful and retains nothing of what he learns, will he not be an empty vessel?
That is certain.
Labouring in vain, he must end in hating himself and his fruitless occupation? Yes.
Then a soul which forgets cannot be ranked among genuine philosophic natures; we must insist that the philosopher should have a good memory?
Certainly.
And once more, the inharmonious and unseemly nature can only tend to disproportion?
Undoubtedly.
And do you consider truth to be akin to proportion or to disproportion?
To proportion.
Then, besides other qualities, we must try to find a naturally well-proportioned and gracious mind, which will move spontaneously towards the true being of everything.
Certainly.
Well, and do not all these qualities, which we have been enumerating, go together, and are they not, in a manner, necessary to a soul, which is to have a full and perfect participation of being?
They are absolutely necessary, he replied.
And must not that be a blameless study which he only can pursue who has the gift of a good memory, and is quick to learn,—noble, gracious, the friend of truth, justice, courage, temperance, who are his kindred?
You will free yourself when you learn to be neutral and follow the instructions of your heart without letting things perturb you. This is the way of Maat.
[Plato slips the word “Blameless” the ancient title of our ancestors, “The Blameless Ethiopians.” To read more see The 10 Codes of the Blameless ]
The god of jealousy himself, he said, could find no fault with such a study.
And to men like him, I said, when perfected by years and education, and to these only you will entrust the State.
When the governing class isn’t chosen for quality it is chosen for material wealth: this always means decadence, the lowest stage a society can reach.
Don’t forget to subscribe to the ABS.
African Blood Siblings 