[LaFond’s input is in brackets.]
“Nothing worth knowing can be written down”. As a student dedicated to unlearning, the soul which inhabits my meatsuit has led me to understand the notion all one can know is himself. This is quite an offensive idea to those who need others to manipulate, or be manipulated by.
[I suggest Conspiracy, Compliance, Control, and Defiance by Andy Nowicki, and suggest that complaisance is a disease of the soul promulgated by our systems of control like soda pop promotes obesity.]
At the root of all institutionalized knowledge today is “materialism”, meaning something like: all reality can be reduced to “matter” and its movements in the universe. For example, since we can't see “social categories” such as male and female under a microscope: trannies. Powerful people do not care whether these things are true. “Materialism” is their will to power manifest, humanity reduced to repeatable and observable phenomena in a controlled environment. As I am not powerful in the sense of controlling anyone other than myself, I care about reality as it is, and have carried out the implications of “materialism” to their logical conclusions. As I have said, I know nothing but myself. I only hope to demonstrate those who rule know nothing as well.
[Miyomota Musashi, in his Book of Five Spheres, begins very much as you do in these two paragraphs before and after this bracket, including the house foundation analogy. I would recommend his book as a read for he dealt in the very specific reality of killing.]
Just as when a house is built, it must have a foundation, so too must our knowledge have some foundation on which it rests. “Know yourself”, what would one be more certain a foundation than one's own existence?
[It is my opinion that self-knowledge is so crucial to masculine rejection of domestication that combat training and other physical aspects traditional to the development of boys, youth and men in pre-modern societies, have been systematically removed from life in order to cripple self-knowledge.]
Considering this, what does it mean to “know” in this context, as opposed to “knowing” in other contexts? I imagine it is the certainty of it, no man can know me better than I do, any who does is a liar, or does not know himself. I am certain of this. Although this may seem intuitive, it is not what most people believe.
[Knowledge put forth by those who teach rather than those who do is the central tenet of our system of control, a practice the system is wedded to even when it repeatedly results in military debacles and other system malfunctions. What is the typical postmodern educator but a person who has had no involvement in the subject she teaches? Therefore, our system of learning is a system of unlearning, or pre-retardation of reason and corruption of logos.]
“I think therefore I am”, I believe this was Descartes own attempt to lay a foundation for knowledge, and the statement itself may seem mundane, almost innocent. However, on closer examination, it reveals itself to be a monstrosity, an abomination which tarnished all western thought, until western thought simply ceased by the 20th century. It is a worship of the intellect over being itself, putting the two at odds with each other, when clearly the former serves the latter.
[I have long regarded modern philosophy as masturbatory misuse of the mind in order to preempt action and hence I have avoided reading all of it. I have read some chapters of Mencken on Nietzsche and Jason Jorjani’s Prometheus and Atlas and am utterly ignorant of modern philosophy and would like to remain so.]
Consider the statement “I think”. It already assumes an “I” to begin with, and further that this “I” is capable of producing thoughts, as opposed to thoughts merely occurring and “I” being witness to them. With the addition of the statement “therefore I am”, it is to say that the rational agent within us, is us. As it turns out, what actually produces thoughts is not “I”, but rather the brain, a piece of matter which itself was produced through material means. Tying rationality and existence together ended up “proving” that “I” does not exist at all, it is mere movement of matter giving the illusion of self through “electricity and brain chemicals”. This is the same conclusion the dead-end of religion of Buddhism reached when it denied the soul, which is also the religion most western bugmen atheists turn to. “I am a brain, therefore I am not”.
[Brilliant. Thanks for this insight. I never looked at the anti-human mechanics of philosophy, just mistrusted it as the prattle of sissies.]
I suppose this idea, that only human beings have souls, is a product of civilized thinking of superiority to nature that made it's way to Europe via Christianity, though mysticism lived on in the Catholic rendition of it through “meditations”, cults of the saints, etc, which Protestantism seems to have done away with completely. Ironically, all this would end up “proving” humans do not have souls. (Descartes lived from 1596-1650, I do not know much about this time period, though it was right before the enlightenment. Christianity seems to have already been on the way out)
Avicenna (980-1037) had a thought experiment called “the floating man”, a man born into a void with no light, etc for him to sense external objects, and thus no way to form thoughts. He would still “know” he existed. In fact it would be the only thing he would be certain of, “I am”. This is far better than Descartes “ I think therefore I am”. Evola's spiritual mentor Guenon converted to Suffi Islam, and I think this makes it apparent why.
[Evola does a nice job in the Metaphysics of War linking Hindu, Islamic, Heathen and Catholic metaphysics along heroically Arуan lines of exchange. We forget that we teach and learn from our enemy combatants. They are more like us than the masters or the slaves of our own matrix.]
Pressing the issue a bit further, why exactly is a consciousness, “I”, required in the first place to bear witness to thoughts and sensations? If we are just biological machines, what would be the purpose of something witnessing these material processes? Some sort of soulless humanity would be preferable under this worldview of “materialism”, which would not suffer the sensations and thoughts occurring. Considering how many drug, media, video game, etc addicts there are, this already seems to be the case.
[The subversion of the soul, which I suspect can be killed without attention to the body and may be absent from a great many of our physical fellows, has now passed largely from men of faith to men of recreational and frightful—news—mind space. The priests have been relegated to supporting the social ethos and their duty to kill or maim our souls and feed it to their monstrous masters has passed to electronic and chemical mind masters.]
As it turns out, to the materialist, they don't exist. They cannot “know themselves”, because they have externalized their sense of self, namely to the realm of observable and repeatable phenomena, “matter”. So to this human type, we are slaves to history and material processes, any one who attempts to break off this mental plantation is an enemy.
[The Plantation of the soul was moved from body to mind, by official decree in 1868, I believe, though the dates vary from place to place. I am a certifiable kook who suspects that we are being harvested as edible souls by either this rampant system or that which it serves, or both.]
To the man of the spirit, history and “materialism” are chains to be broken. So, we must assume there is an “I” that exists that may affirm itself to carry on. How could one know anything more than their own existence anyways? It's not as if I can see the world through your eyes, or think your thoughts, and even if this were possible, there would still be two separate agents witnessing the same phenomena. I also am the only one who knows my intentions, in fact, many times one denies their existence by rationalizing weakness of character as “good”. Not only does the “materialist” externalize their sense of self, they externalize morality as something that can be understood through laws and logic. In fact, to them morality has nothing to do with ones own actions! Most damning of all, uncertainty of one's own existence, or certainty of it's non existence, is to say one can know others just as well as one knows himself. This defies common sense, and is to claim one knows what they could not possibly know.
[Note that modern remnant churches tend to focus on feeding human bodies with souls erased by drugs, or who are actual enemies of their faith, demonstrating a current Christian obsession with feeding, housing, in-taking and spreading the enemies of Christianity and people who are nothing but chemical waste dumps. Contrast this obsession with maximizing zombie population numbers with the early Christian proclivity for vows of poverty and ascetic devotion to the Higher World.]
Fortunately, women are ego made manifest, and have no problem affirming an “I”. In fact, for a man to deny his own existence is to deny her existence, and leave her to face the ego shattering aspects of reality which will destroy her, not affirm her like they would a man. The man of the spirit, the man who knows himself will come to know many women. Men have no ego, they have no need to be loved, they only have love to give.
[I’m in disagreement here, for myself, anyway, as I have a driving ego, though I do appreciate the view that women are ego manifest, for I see it constantly in women. I see myself as a tension between my lesser part, being the ego, and my greater part, being my discipline, with the tension between the two resulting in the actions for which I live. For I have no desire to be, but to do.]
