How to Become a Warrior Philosopher.
Let me start with a brief introduction to illustrate how a Warrior Philosopher (WP), like Narmer, thinks. Let’s take for instance part of a speech/answer by Julius Malema of South Africa when he was asked about yt farmers threatening to leave South Africa over land reforms.
I take Malema’s speech for this example because many people would assume that because Julius Malema is a famous activist in South Africa for human rights, and because he is locked in step with fighting white terrorists/supremacists in South Africa, he must invariably also think like a Warrior Philosopher. After all he is a Member of Parliament and the President and Commander-in-Chief of the Economic Freedom Fighters, a South African political party, which he founded in July 2013.
I also use Malemas speech as an example because it will push us all to strive to become the Warrior Philosophers we truly need to become to affect existing yt terrorist ideology. And so for that matter, there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that Malema is a fighter, but he doesn’t necessarily think like a Warrior Philosopher. Let me illustrate with parts of the speech I mentioned:
Let me reiterate a few parts of the quote for good effect: “I am Malema and I am not going to beg them [the yt farmers]. I will never beg them.” This couple of sentences reflect the fact that Malema is naturally fighting against the fabricated, and artificially instituted privileged position that yt people occupy in South Africa, which is at the top of the caste system of South Africa. Here, we become aware that Malema is not only emphasizing his humanity alone, but that he is making it obvious that he is fighting against a system of yt people that continues to devalue his humanity.
Malema is a fighter. No doubt.
And then we get to the next few sentences in the series which I think are mistakes. Mistakes that a Warrior Philosopher will not make, and should not make: That is “They [the yt farmers] are going to stay here if they agree to be equal to Black people.” Square this idea with the rest of the sentences in the quote and you quickly become aware that Malema is actually begging the yt farmers to stay if they accept to be equal to Black people. But then Malema himself agrees that yt people are afraid to lose any parts of their stolen, accumulated, African wealth.
All of which begs the question: If the yt people are not afraid to share in the wealth, why are they so scared of equality? You see, there’s no such division between equality and sharing-in-the-wealth as Malema would like to believe. To be equal is to share!
Is Malema a fighter? Absolutely. Not only is he a fighter, he is a lovely one! Malema is also a very nice guy. He is a Peace-making Philosopher (PP). What he is not is a Warrior Philosopher. Warriors do not offer their enemies a cop-out.
The fundamental way a Warrior Philosopher would think about this is simple: There’s no equality without the sharing of the wealth. In fact—and this part is even more important—there’s no equality without returning what has been stolen from us, compensating us for stealing it, atoning for the thievery, and then begging us to accept your probationary equal humanity with us.
It doesn’t matter that Malema may have mentioned these very demands somewhere, some place, but Warrior Philosophers do not have the luxury of not always making their ideas clear! In other words Warrior Philosophers come to force your submission at all times to their clear demands, by dint of pure human reasoning. Warrior Philosophers do not see yt supremacists, for instance, as human—since the very particular violence of yt terrorists against Black people have disqualified their equal humanity to us. They are animals.
That is, warriors come to the fight to win, at any costs with every word they can muster! A Warrior Philosopher does not express his ideas to lose an ideological battle, or to make room to fight the battle at another date. And certainly, a Warrior Philosopher does not pick a fight so that he can draw his enemy. Absolutely not.
To become a Warrior, and a Warrior Philosopher at that, is to accept that the chosen battle is one in which only one man stands. There are no cop-outs. Since what necessitated the battle makes it so—for instance, either we beat and defeat white supremacism and eradicate it from everywhere on Earth, or it will have us for dinner. There is no copping out. (And this is not to say that Malema is copping out, but by the actions of his wording he is allowing yt terrorists to cop out).
This is the reality that molds the mindset of the Warrior Philosopher. And this is a tiny illustration of the mind of the Warrior Philosopher (WP) in his unending battle to emphasize and enforce in full regalia not only his Black humanity, but his Black identity as well.
WP. Narmer Amenuti.
Is there a difference between offering your enemy a “cop out” and giving your enemy an ultimatum?
Is a cop-out ultimately about avoiding Philosophical Warfare where an ultimatum is a form of Philosophical Warfare?
In the sense that I read Malema’s quote, you are not wrong when you say that offering your enemy a cop-out is perhaps a way to avoid warfare. And you are correct, if one were to think that Malema was rather giving the yts an ultimatum, that an ultimatum is a form of warfare.
The Warrior Philosopher would look at these in simple terms, however. In this case one needs to completely describe the enemy before the next steps. For instance, let’s say the enemy is a yt supremacist regime.
Offering this enemy a cop-out is a form of “Cowardice.” It’s telling the yt terrorists that you don’t like warfare. Or that you are afraid of warfare.
Warrior Philosophers do not issue ultimatums or cop-outs. Since an ultimatum is in form, a cop-out. Although the difference between a cop-out and an ultimatum is that an ultimatum might make the issuer look more willing to engage in the battle than a cop-out does.
The advice of the Warrior Philosopher then is this:
When you decide on warfare: (1) Move quickly, forestalling the enemy, or (2) Move unto your enemy strongly, and when you smell any blood, move even more strongly to surprise him of your strength, or yet, (3) Move with a calm spirit, constantly crushing the enemy in the depths of his safety.
The point is to win, at any costs, against such an enemy since it is your head or his. No ifs no buts. Cop-outs, or ultimatums, give the enemy a chance to prepare and react. Give enemies no such chances! Better to remain quiet.
For instance a warrior philosopher move is this: I don’t accept that I share a common humanity with yt terrorists. They are terrorists. They are not human. The only terms I accept to speak with yt terrorists is if they agree with me that there’s no equality without returning what has been stolen from us, compensating us for stealing it, atoning for their thievery, and then begging us to accept their probational humanity until they are reformed into fully human beings.
1. Your warrior philosopher characterization is what we in the U.S. currently refer to as critical race theory, and we reject it. You are correct in that if you truly believe what you believe, despite the possibility of being wrong, you should just go to war, because the others will not capitulate if they truly believe what they believe. And when you insist on people begging you to accept their “probationary humanity”, you are suggesting that it is the other that is inferior and that you are worthy and trustworthy of their supplication.
So, while this all might sound good to a downtrodden, victim- identified culture, in reality it is a setup for failure and, ultimately, war. If you are thre dominant presence, you can, and will, issue ultimatums because not engaging in war saves much needed resources for future wars or strong enemies. An ultimatum can also be a bluff by a weaker force. It worked when Japan got a much larger British-led Indian regiment to surrender because British leadership, at the time, was feckless.
2. Also, a quote from your article referenced Malema saying if white farmers accepted equality, they would stay, and you said that was him begging them to stay. I think you misread the quote. Your reply makes it sound as if he meant he wanted them to offer them equally in order to get them to stay. But, to me, it sounds as if he doesn’t want them to stay and was *warning* that if offered equality, they would never leave. It sounds as if he rally wants them gone and therefore doesn’t want equality as an option.
3. Lastly, equality should mainly be something demanded of the law/government…. equal opportunity, not equal results. The weak, however, will allways mostly hate the rich but most of that is envy, jealousy and the desire for revenge for slights both real and perceived.
This is a bit of a tangent, but I sometimes want to avoid calling them “animals” because animals have a place in nature, but white people make a point to undermine nature.
And calling them “terrorist” may inappropriately communicate we’re terrified of them. Even when that’s true, should we be publically saying so with our chests?
Would calling them “antihueman” work? Lol
And in general, Is being a this much of a stickler about language the work of a Warrior Philosopher as well?
If you continue eith this idea that white people are even sub-animal anf have no place in nature, it will only result in your own destruction. Why? Because nature made them. So if you think Nature made a mistake, you are mistaken. Better you try to understand their chief defect and, beside ot, their chief compensation/ motivation. But that would require an evolution in your thinking away from the victim and closer to this “human” to which you’ve referred.
You make very good points. And so yes, the choice for the appropriate word(s) to describe the enemy as accurately as one can get is the first duty of the Warrior Philosopher. Naming is fundamental. It situates the nature of the battle within the correct mindset. The better the naming captures the character of the enemy the better.
I don’t think an enemy is necessarily captured by one word or name alone. Sometimes you need a few. For instance, the Ancient Romans referred to the Germanic tribes of the western and northen Coniferous forests as Barbarians. And truly, let us be honest, were they wrong? Remember, the KMTians had described the Libyans (the ancient name for the Caucasoids) as Restless Peoples. Were they wrong? The Ewes of West Africa describe them as Ayevu or Cunning Dogs, are they wrong? The Akans of West Africa describe them as Abrorfo or Troublemakers, are they wrong?
I think, anithueman, terrorists, barbarians, restless, Ayevu, Abrorfo, all attempt something few philosophers are willing to do today. Calling a thing that is at war with you and that is constantly striving to kill you, hueman, does not work. It does not capture the nature of what the enemy has been for thousands of years. Anything but hueman. The Warrior philosopher cannot accept that mistake, whether it is detrimental for his outlook or benefits him.
And so yes, the Warrior Philosopher is a stickler about language. About naming, since these express and inform our collective mentality. Again, warrior philosophy is about setting and maintaining the correct mentality about what is detrimental to the existence of the masses that you defend.
The name of your enemy is “I”. Your friend, “I”. The stranger? “I”. Which “I” is speaking in you now? The one that wants… the one that opposes… or the one that reconciles? Which “I” knows what is really the ideal… humans who want to treat others as non human because they think they have been treated as non human. The cycle of violence will not end.
In addition, should we call yt people out with these names with our chests? I believe so. The yt people have always called us names with their chests. We hide nothing they don’t already know. In fact, what we accomplish, by not proclaiming the correct names for yt people, especially among ourselves, is that we prevent the large masses of Black people and the next Black generation from learning the correct things about their enemies, meanwhile the yt children are being concertedly cultivated in their yt communities as antihueman pests fashioned against the humanity of Black people.
The earlier all Black people became aware of the correct mentality to adopt, the better. Warrior philosophy in this sense, serves this tremendous need.
So let’s indoctrinate future generations to hate because it’ll be good for them to hate ppl based solely on their skin color. That’s a recipe for destruction, self destruction. But that is exactly what happens to victim-identified cultures, they destroy their souls by adopting the thinking and methods of those they justify hating.
A great example is the Palestinian culture. They were offered 95% of their demands but their leadership knew it was easier to fight than to govern so they rejected the opportunity to make life better for everyone. This is exactly what you’re embracing here, perpetual victimhood.
And please, do not forget how horribly bad miserable blacks have treated blacks all throughout history. Not exactly angels. Where do you think thre slave trade started and still exists as strong as ever? That’s right. Africa.
So is calling them “terrorist” more for our benefit than it is a tool to directly hurt them? Calling them by how they make many of us feel? Terror?
Is there utility in war for proclaiming and affirming what we’re afraid of?
Conventional wisdom would have us hide or obscure our fears in war.
But then again… White people don’t seem at all concerned about telling everyone what they’re afraid of.
Maybe there is power in the oppressed being more honest about it as well.
DB. Perhaps, I see where the idea of “terrorist” invokes “terror.” That though is literal, but few literal translations actually capture the essence of words in themselves.
The calculation here rather is that by “terrorists” we want to express the idea that they do not fight conventionally. That yt terrorism is not a conventional enemy against Black people. It is as unconventional as it gets with yt terrorism. In this sense one can insinuate that the Yt Cop Injustice Enforcement Systems in the US and at the UN, WHO, World Bank, etc. are Irregular Armies that are fighting unconventional wars against Black people.
Hence by “Terrorists” I wish only to inform Black people that the enemy is unconventional and that we must adopt Non-Linear Tactics. (of course, more on Non-linear tactics). It is also important to send the signal to Black people that the enemy also has the ability to inflict harm. Honesty must be complete, and so I agree when you say “there is power in the oppressed being more honest about it as well.”
More, it is important for the enemy to know your modus operandi. It is important for yt philosophers to know that if they paint Black culture and knowledge systems in any negative light, our warrior guns will come blazing!
We call it Warrior Doctrine. Even conventional armies like The US, the UK, the Japanese have their Military Doctrines. The Russians also have theirs. No African country has yet declared what its Military Doctrine is, how much more for a warrior philosophy. Although Dahomey, just 100 years ago, had its own Military Doctrine (https://grandmotherafrica.com/mawi-last-dying-breed-warriors/), which in today’s US can be referred to as the popular MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).
In this sense, it is important to let your enemies also know who you are and what you are willing to do and will do in case they go to war with you.
Isn’t it advantageous for the enemy to not have access to our doctrines?
I like the idea of being beyond their comprehension.
Of representing a kind of threat they don’t even know they should be afraid of.
There’s a poem about being a “menace” to your enemies, but I’d rather come at them in a way they would never even think to defend against.
To me the jury is still out on Julius Malema, the Pan African Community have had a hard time getting him here in the UK to articulate his vision for South Africa and the only time that we got him here, I later realised with shock that he was here at the invitation of the Chatham House crowd. No wonder he could only afford a couple of hours meeting with us but spent the few days he had here hobnobbing with the oppressor.
you are sooo right, all we have been doing is offering peace in the name of equality to the yt supremacy system, and guess what they have done, they have been wiping us out from the face of the earth whiles we look on.
In other words, the cowardice must stop and we must meet war with war because white supremacy, through its history and actions has not minced words or actions, its intentions have always been clearly defined, conquer and subjugate black people by whatever means necessary.
Invoke the Ghost of Malcolm X
I would say we all need to read “the Art of War”, by Tszu. Historically, no nation has remained sovereign when threatened by an aggressor, (invader, conqueror, enslaver, colonialist), without fighting back with force. The person, or nation, trying to take something from you, will never negotiate, if they are stronger in arms. You are simply “begging”, someone to see your side, when you approach them being weaker in arms. When you have equal, or greater strength, then you can “choose” to negotiate. I am not a Communist/Socialist, in my political ideology, but I respect China as being basically, the only nation on earth that has stood up to the barbarous west. These westerners are greedy, impulsive, aggressive, interlopers, with no conscience. You can’t negotiate with people who see you as inferior and weak, and want what you have. It doesn’t make sense. We all need to support Malema! He is standing up for Maat, to put down Isfetian westerners, who think the world, and it’s resources, labor, belong to them. You have to “show” them, not talk to them, that it doesn’t.
I don’t even think China is in that category of strongmen. They are interdependent with the US economy which birthed and bankrolled their status today. Maybe Russia is the nation that had stood up to the west from the east.
We don’t need to argue over whether Malema is a warrior philosopher or not. All of us have a right to our own opinions, as long as those opinions support the larger collective. In this case, I don’t think we can argue about Malema’s “intent” for the people. That’s what matters most. He wants what’s best for our people.
All of us have been mentally indoctrinated through slavery, colonization, colonizer’s education, colonizer’s religion and God, colonizer’s economic and political institutions. we need to move beyond that and say, Why are we debating with people who devalue us? There is no debate. These interlopers can be “forced” out of SA legally. Let’s be smart about this.
We are one Afrikan people. There are thousands, of Black Afrikan diaspora farmers, who have been cheated of lands in the U.S., there are Afrikan diaspora farmers all over the world, and Black Afrikan farmers right in the continent in other Afrikan countries. They have the same knwledge, and sometimes more, than the whites. We don’t “need” them in SA.
If the laws of the country call for “Maat” in every aspect, equality, justice, righteousness, etc., that’s all we need. They abide by it like everyone else, or leave. We will make it legally to share the land they stole from us, with Black Afrikan farmers. This can be done legally and sensibly with rational humans. There are no hierarchies in humans.
We can offer them this highly sAfrikan spiritual position, and if they reject, they suffer. They are a minority in our land. They don’t tell us what to do. we must not be afraid. there is no death. Transition is eternal, and we should do what’s “right” without fear at all times.
I can personally bring thousands of Black diaspora farmers there to produce what we need. we need to unite. Let’s stop being silly. We are all one Black Afrikan people to everyone, and in fact, except to ourselves. It’s a mental problem we have. We have the intellect, and know how, to farm the land. we have the technology, or can buy it.