Onitaset Kumat is Wiser than the Wisest Europeans

Listen Siblings, I come in peace,

“People bring about their own undoing through their tongues.” — KMT Proverb

I used to self-aggrandize with a Sister then nominally apologize.  She forgave me pointing out how it’s alright to toot one’s own horn.  It seems detestable to boast of one’s own wisdom, yet unlike many readers, I engage in actual struggle.  It’s incredibly important for African people to realize that there exists an African man, Onitaset Kumat, more wise than every European ever (and every Asian for that matter), since he was twenty-one no less.

The following post showcases why I can claim this.  But it’s also relevant to explore where our people are to see why this self-aggrandizement is necessary to promote.  On the streets, I speak with young and old, and more often than not, one can elicit the wisdom of our people and see that we are educated to be highly erroneous and highly ignorant.  A thirteen-year-old for instance was proudly placed into a Jewish school by her mother, she also conceived that Ancient Egyptians look like the Arabs who sell fake meat in our neighborhoods; a seventeen-year-old would vaunt his intellectual prowess at claiming Europeans his extended Brothers, though this young man’s life expectancy was incredibly low due these Europeans; a fifteen-year-old would resist giving me her email address though she would never resist a school’s (a collective of less wise and less knowledgeable Europeans); other youth found signing up for a newsletter edited by myself more threatening than attending a library stocked by a collective of less wise and less knowledgeable Europeans; a man of forty would tell a boy of thirteen “I’m tired of cleaning up shit, walk your fucking dog,” not understanding the effects that will have on the child; a man of fifty would boast how he intentionally supports the Arab for keeping us afloat unknowing of how deeply they enslaved us; a youth of sixteen would walk from me and laugh at the thought of organization, whereas three blocks away, youth of nineteen are illegally being interrogated by the Police who have their hands on their guns; few of us understood the wisdom I had written: “No European is qualified to educate African people,” the list can go on.

The “why” of making the claim of being wiser than their wisest is displayed.  The “how” will be showcased.  First, I will shortly explain “how” by comparing myself to the wisest European.  Then I will show you two other wise Europeans, their debate, and how they are both Erroneous.  Finally, I will show you the musings of the “Superstar Philosopher.”  With this the point should be made.  Beyond understanding that an African youth is wiser than every European ever, you should realize that forming a African Blood Siblings Community Center, a Community Center independent of these less wise, less knowledgeable Europeans is in order.  Write for more information.  Subscribe, share, love.

Onitaset Kumat is Wiser than the Wisest Europeans
By Onitaset Kumat

Wisdom is not a trait from Occidentalism, the behaviors and mannerisms of Europeans.  Historically, wisdom has come from Originalism, the behaviors and mannerism of Africans.  This is evinced in the historical fact that there are only two eras of European Wisdom (in the entirety of Europe’s 50,000+ years of occupancy, both of which are non-indigenous.  Namely, there is the “Ancient Civilizations” and the “Classical Civilizations” of which the modern age is a continuation.  The “Ancient Civilizations” are Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.  The “Classical Civilizations” represents the Renaissance period of Western Europe.  Neither of these are indigenous (initiated by Europeans), the former occurred after Europeans destroyed Minoa and began interactions with Ancient Egypt, which was already thousands of years strong; the latter occurred after the invading Moors (Africans and Asians) and their expulsion.  In between these two periods was the Dark Ages, the European’s natural state, where warfare was their only mastery.  It’s known that before the Ancient Period, “the Dark Ages” were sustained.

I, Onitaset Kumat, have already exhibited in a multitude of ways that I am wiser than Socrates, the wisest European ever.  Recently I wrote “Plato’s Philosopher King, our Cosmic Wisdom and Onitaset Kumat” and a long time back I wrote “The Law of Morality.”  The former directly links a passage in the Republic to the Wisdom of our ancestors, though I point out error, which showcases my greater Wisdom; the latter shows the wisdom which Socrates sought but could not fathom, also showcasing my greater Wisdom.  Seeing how Socrates is the Wisest European ever, which are his own words after thorough research but also a true fact accepted by all Europeans; as I am wiser than Socrates, I am wiser than every European.

To leave the topic like that would be a disservice to the task, because many of us are unfamiliar with the wisdom of Socrates, thus we are unfamiliar with how definitive that proof is.  So I present two other Europeans which you may not be familiar with but are unquestionably accepted as top-rank thinkers: Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault.  The former has been for over fifty-years an MIT–the most prestigious school in America–Professor of Philosophy and Linguistics, who is noted to have “revolutionized” the latter field; the latter is of the same prestige, noted as a Philosopher and Professor, and has been shown to be the most cited person in the Humanities in 2007; his books being cited over 2500 times in that year alone[1].  The two, in 1971, met on the stage of “The International Philosopher’s Project,” debating Philosophy and Politics, for a large audience, questioning most importantly “human nature” and “morality.”  The following videos are clips to the full debate (the transcripts can be seen below):

The full debate’s transcript can be seen here: http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm

The transcript for the video and commentary thereupon is available below.  See in my commentary (as usual the non-italicized writing) how the wisdom of these Europeans are actual, factual errors despite the accolades and esteem of the competitors; the symbol “[ . . .]” represents that the video skipped from the official transcript:

First Video Transcript

[ . . .]

CHOMSKY:

Let me begin by referring to something that we have already discussed, that is, if it is correct, as I believe it is, that a fundamental element of human nature is the need for creative work, for creative inquiry, for free creation without the arbitrary limiting effect of coercive institutions, then, of course, it will follow that a decent society should maximise the possibilities for this fundamental human characteristic to be realised. That means trying to overcome the elements of repression and oppression and destruction and coercion that exist in any existing society, ours for example, as a historical residue.

[ . . . ]

Right off the bat, Chomsky is wrong.  As pointed out above, there are only two periods of “European Wisdom,” both of which remain violent and coercive institutions like their predecessors and successors.  What he calls “human nature” is “African Nature” or Originalism, and its inapplicable to Occidental people.  So to speak, this historical residue is “European Nature” and the only creative people in history are African people.  To make it clear, the world has its Pyramids and Statues, but each reflect African creativity, every Great Wall reflects African ingenuity, see China’s and Zimbabwe’s larger wall, finally there’s Nigeria’s rampart, the largest pre-modern structure in the world.  Europe has at best cave drawings and Stone Henge in England, and the latter is not clearly European.

Now a federated, decentralised system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organisation for an advanced technological society, in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it by a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature, will in fact be able to realise itself in whatever way it will.

[  . . .]

Chomsky is erroneous again for the above reasons.  It’s worth noting that Chomsky is unwittingly praising African societies, just like most every other European “Thinker” because “thinking” originated with African people, and all that we study has a root in Africa, ergo our claim as Originals.  To make it clearer, indigenous African civilizations fostered the creative urge; what were the Yoruba, for instance, doing when Europeans attacked?  Creating beautiful works.  But indigenous European civilizations have not fostered the creative urge, instead they were the warriors which currently characterize even modern societies.  The theme of my wisdom is revisited upon because Chomsky erroneously misunderstands “human nature” as, in European fashion, see “Notes on Marimba Ani’s “Yurugu” Lecture,” universal though I have shown that each race has a different nature, see the complete dialogue on race.

FOUCAULT:

I go much less far than Mr. Chomsky. That is to say that I admit to not being able to define, nor for even stronger reasons to propose, an ideal social model for the functioning of our scientific or technological society.
On the other hand, one of the tasks that seems immediate and urgent to me, over and above anything else, is this: that we should indicate and show up, even where they are hidden, all the relationships of political power which actually control the social body and oppress or repress it.
What I want to say is this: it is the custom, at least in European society, to consider that power is localised in the hands of the government and that it is exercised through a certain number of particular institutions, such as the administration, the police, the army, and the apparatus of the state. One knows that all these institutions are made to elaborate and to transmit a certain number of decisions, in the name of the nation or of the state, to have them applied and to punish those who don’t obey. But I believe that political power also exercises itself through the mediation of a certain number of institutions which look as if they have nothing in common with the political power, and as if they are independent of it, while they are not.
One knows this in relation to the family; and one knows that the university and in a general way, all teaching systems, which appear simply to disseminate knowledge, are made to maintain a certain social class in power; and to exclude the instruments of power of another social class.
Institutions of knowledge, of foresight and care, such as medicine, also help to support the political power. It’s also obvious, even to the point of scandal, in certain cases related to psychiatry.
It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them.
This critique and this fight seem essential to me for different reasons: firstly, because political power goes much deeper than one suspects; there are centres and invisible, little-known points of support; its true resistance, its true solidity is perhaps where one doesn’t expect it. Probably it’s insufficient to say that behind the governments, behind the apparatus of the State, there is the dominant class; one must locate the point of activity, the places and forms in which its domination is exercised. And because this domination is not simply the expression in political terms of economic exploitation, it is its instrument and, to a large extent, the condition which makes it possible; the suppression of the one is achieved through the exhaustive discernment of the other. Well, if one fails to recognise these points of support of class power, one risks allowing them to continue to exist; and to see this class power reconstitute itself even after an apparent revolutionary process.

This one may need some rereading, but it’s also straightforward when you realize that what he’s saying is my quotation, “The Problem with Europeans and Asians is Europeans and Asians.”  In essence, the goal to those who are students of Wisdom is to attain African Society, something Just and with a Purpose.  Yet, the nature of Europeans is to dominate and be tribal.  So, Foucault says in so many words that in many unsuspected and “invisible” social institutions, the need to be dominant and tribal is inexplicably sought.  He says that we should be able to expose the localized points.  I am wiser than he because I point out the localized point in one word: Europeans.  He’s scratching his head.

Second Video Transcript

CHOMSKY:

Yes, I would certainly agree with that, not only in theory but also in action. That is, there are two intellectual tasks: one, and the one that I was discussing, is to try to create the vision of a future just society; that is to create, if you like, a humanistic social theory that is based, if possible, on some firm and humane concept of the human essence or human nature. That’s one task.
Another task is to understand very clearly the nature of power and oppression and terror and destruction in our own society. And that certainly includes the institutions you mentioned, as well as the central institutions of any industrial society, namely the economic, commercial and financial institutions and in particular, in the coming period, the great multi-national corporations, which are not very far from us physically tonight [i.e. Philips at Eindhoven].
Those are the basic institutions of oppression and coercion and autocratic rule that appear to be neutral despite everything they say: well, we’re subject to the democracy of the market place,

[ . . .]

Chomsky here concedes that there exists a nature of idealism and a nature of realism.  That is there exists a conception of African society and a reality of European society.  That is there is an African nature and a European nature.  But this I know (and you know) while Chomsky doesn’t.  Ergo his error and our greater wisdom.

Still, I think it would be a great shame to put aside entirely the somewhat more abstract and philosophical task of trying to draw the connections between a concept of human nature that gives full scope to freedom and dignity and creativity and other fundamental human characteristics, and to relate that to some notion of social structure in which those properties could be realised and in which meaningful human life could take place.
And in fact, if we are thinking of social transformation or social revolution, though it would be absurd, of course, to try to sketch out in detail the goal that we are hoping to reach, still we should know something about where we think we are going, and such a theory may tell it to us.

Chomsky remains unaware that the European has a nature of death and destruction.  He entirely ignores that no creativity is a result of an indigenous European effort.  He seems to delude himself that, for instance, the Europeans who lynched Lee Walker or Jesse Washington were not doing it out of their natural inclinations, though, in the case of Lee Walker, the institutions he critiques, like the Police, were nominally adverse to the killing.  See in this the wisdom of this newsletter and the error of the Wisest Europeans–as this is acceptable ‘intellectual genius’ among Europeans.

FOUCAULT:

Yes, but then isn’t there a danger here? If you say that a certain human nature exists, that this human nature has not been given in actual society the rights and the possibilities which allow it to realise itself…that’s really what you have said, I believe.

Foucault points out the silliness of attributing European Nature as distinct from European society.  Why, if Europeans are in power, would they not organize according to their nature?  This is what “Whitewashing” does to scholarship, you read African societies as if they were European societies and make the mistake that African Nature is according European nature (this is the meaning of Atlantis).  In not understanding this “Whitewashing,” neither Chomsky nor Foucault are wiser than Onitaset Kumat or the African Blood Siblings.

CHOMSKY:

Yes.

FOUCAULT:

And if one admits that, doesn’t one risk defining this human nature which is at the same time ideal and real, and has been hidden and repressed until now – in terms borrowed from our society, from our civilisation, from our culture?

[ . . .]

Here’s where Foucault errs badly.  He sees that Chomsky erred in attaching Europeans to African nature, but he doesn’t jump on it as “We’re mis-attaching ourselves to an African past,” instead he fabricates that the two must be contextually wrong because context influences truth.  This isn’t true, “Truth is Truth.”  Again, this is a clear sign of us being more wise than these wise Europeans.

The result is that you too realised, I think, that it is difficult to say exactly what human nature is.
Isn’t there a risk that we will be led into error? Mao Tse-Tung spoke of bourgeois human nature and proletarian human nature, and he considers that they are not the same thing.

Truly Human nature is subjective, but only racially subjective.  For instance, all Africans have African nature, Europeans, European nature, Asians, Asian nature.  Just like all seeds have requirements for growth, but different types of seeds take different times to grow, need different nutrients, need different sunlight and so forth.  All people are fundamentally moral, but that morality is different for each race: The African restores, the European tribalizes, and the Asian contracts; see Originalism, Occidentalism and Orientalism respectively.

CHOMSKY:

Well, you see, I think that in the intellectual domain of political action, that is the domain of trying to construct a vision of a just and free society on the basis of some notion of human nature, we face the very same problem that we face in immediate political action,

[ . . . ]

To explain the above commentary in light of Chomsky’s addition: when Europe was under feudal rule, with peons working day in and day out with low life-spans and continual wars, Europeans were free and just according to European nature.  So while we Africans would have been miserable in that position, the European wasn’t, not unless they were influenced by Africans.  This is the explanation of the phrase “Ignorance is Bliss.”  The European was happily blissful with their ignorant lives, so long as their tribes were reported dominant.  News for instance, of France winning a battle, would delight the Frenchman despite the daily toils of an indigent life.  This same analogy can fast forward to our enslavement which was ‘free and just’ to Europeans and ‘unjust’ to Africans.  Even recently with the decimation caused by Hurricane Katrina, destroyed Europeans were happy that Africans were wounded.  Chomsky doesn’t realize that this is European nature and this is freedom and justice for Europeans.

For example, to be quite concrete, a lot of my own activity really has to do with the Vietnam War, and some of my own energy goes into civil disobedience. Well, civil disobedience in the U.S. is an action undertaken in the face of considerable uncertainties about its effects. For example, it threatens the social order in ways which might, one might argue, bring about fascism; and that would be a very bad thing for America, for Vietnam, for Holland and for everyone else.

[ . . .]

Chomsky again neglects to realize that “Fascism” is just another name for “Tribalism:” like all European ideologies, seeing how “Tribalism” is the only European ideology.  Everything that the European does, according to a natural calling, is toward Tribalism.  It’s only that Chomsky and Foucault are confused to the idealism of African “Restorism” that they don’t realize what they are debating.

[S]o that is one danger in undertaking this concrete act.
On the other hand there is a great danger in not undertaking it, namely, if you don’t undertake it, the society of Indo-China will be torn to shreds by American power. In the face of these uncertainties one has to choose a course of action.
Well, similarly in the intellectual domain, one is faced with the uncertainties that you correctly pose. Our concept of human nature is certainly limited; it’s partially socially conditioned, constrained by our own character defects and the limitations of the intellectual culture in which we exist. Yet at the same time it is of critical importance that we know what impossible goals we’re trying to achieve, if we hope to achieve some of the possible goals. And that means that we have to be bold enough to speculate and create social theories on the basis of partial knowledge, while remaining very open to the strong possibility, and in fact overwhelming probability, that at least in some respects we’re very far off the mark.

[ . . . ]

The mark of European nature is Occidentalism.  This I write boldly and clearly.  This, two intellectual titans of European thought, can not remotely fathom.  This is why Onitaset Kumat is wiser than the wisest Europeans.

FOUCAULT:

But it seems to me that, in any case, the notion of justice itself functions within a society of classes as a claim made by the oppressed class and as justification for it.

This is wrong, “Justice” is “the victory of Morality.”  Morality is racially dependent, surely, but it’s well-defined.

CHOMSKY:

I don’t agree with that.

FOUCAULT:

And in a classless society, I am not sure that we would still use this notion of justice.

“Classless Society” can be attained by Europeans surely, but as Europeans are tribal, it would not be according their nature, and as they progress, ‘classes’ will re-emerge.  This is the tale of the Soviet Union.  This is also the tale of all of their ‘socialist’ gestures.  This is more the tale of the socialists in America, who were just as ready to beat up and batter our ancestors because we were not of their tribe.  It doesn’t end there; states within this union war and compete with one another despite being arguably the same people.  You know this from “State’s Rights” debates wherein one state accuses another state of not understanding–these people are tribal.

CHOMSKY:

Well, here I really disagree. I think there is some sort of an absolute basis–if you press me too hard I’ll be in trouble, because I can’t sketch it out-ultimately residing in fundamental human qualities, in terms of which a “real” notion of justice is grounded.
I think it’s too hasty to characterise our existing systems of justice as merely systems of class oppression; I don’t think that they are that. I think that they embody systems of class oppression and elements of other kinds of oppression, but they also embody a kind of groping towards the true humanly, valuable concepts of justice and decency and love and kindness and sympathy, which I think are real.

[ . . . ]

Chomsky mentions a belief in absolute Morality.  That he can not find it showcases why Socrates is wiser than every European because Socrates very intelligently failed seeking this answer and no European since could find it.  Why I am wiser than every European is because unlike Socrates I found that absolute Morality.  See “The Law of Morality.”  However, more, I found it to be racially subjective.  This is truth because each race has a different conception of spirituality which is part and parcel of morality.

FOUCAULT:

Well, do I have time to answer ?

ELDERS:

Yes.

Elders was the moderator.

FOUCAULT:

How much ? Because. . .

ELDERS:

Two minutes. [Foucault laughs.]

FOUCAULT:

But I would say that that is unjust. [Everybody laughs.]

CHOMSKY:

Absolutely, yes.

FOUCAULT:

No, but I don’t want to answer in so little time. I would simply say this,

[ . . . ]

And contrary to what you think, you can’t prevent me from believing that these notions of human nature, of justice, of the realisation of the essence of human beings, are all notions and concepts which have been formed within our civilisation, within our type of knowledge and our form of philosophy, and that as a result form part of our class system; and one can’t, however regrettable it may be, put forward these notions to describe or justify a fight which should-and shall in principle–overthrow the very fundaments of our society. This is an extrapolation for which I can’t find the historical justification.

[ . . .]

In short, Foucault didn’t realize that there was an absolute Morality above and beyond “Civilization.”  He ended with this idea of overthrowing society not realizing that our moral compasses are intrinsic and inherent.  So to speak, one can not overthrow a society, for a society is just a collection of people.  The people are intrinsically and inherently what the society makes up.  As such, it’s an ignorant fantasy to condemn European society.  As people say, “it is what it is” but I’ll add “because of what it is.”  In other words, in knowing this, I am wiser than both Foucault and Chomsky, part of the Wisest Europeans.

I can look at one last European, known as a Superstar Philosopher, Slavoj Zizek.  He’s a theorist held in great esteem by European people.  Most would recognize him as wiser than they are.  Yet, it’s self-evident from listening to him that he’s not wiser than myself–he seems a bit off his rockers too; but recognize in him a European attempting an African art: Philosophy; then he makes perfect sense in one word: mimicry:

Enough said.  Onitaset Kumat is Wiser than the Wisest Europeans.  We took that long tangent for good cause.  Write the African Blood Siblings about helping to build African Blood Siblings Community Centers, where we can endeavor to make every African more wise than every European.  And recognize that Europeans recognize their wise.

Thanks for subscribing, sharing and loving.

Footnote:

[1] http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=405956&sectioncode=26