Right Wing Fighter

Category: Knowledge

The Nature of Knowledge

After writing my last post, I want to lay out my thoughts on knowledge more.

Knowledge is this: comprehension of the world and how it works.

By the world, I mean nature and the physical laws, plus mankind and how we operate. Since we’re part of the creation, I include us in the “world.”

You can think of each individual part of the world as an item to be understood. The world is filled with individual items that, when put together, make up the whole.

Now, most of what is considered “intelligence” today is the ability to add and subtract such items in our heads. For instance, if you enter an essay competition at school, you’ll be tasked with comparing this idea to that idea. It wont be a question of what you think: it will be a question of your ability to add and subtract what other men have thought. Your essay will be a comparative analysis of other men’s ideas.

Now, I’m going to introduce two concepts: seers and calculators.

The seer is a man that can see the items of the world clearly. As such, he has a clear picture of the world: he has knowledge.

The calculator has a mind strong for adding and subtracting items that have become ideas. An idea is a mental conceptualization of an item. As such, one may be a calculator without being a seer.

For the most part, there is little market for seers today. As noted above, calculating power is considered intelligence.

The problem with calculators is that they can’t tell if their ideas are true or not. They tend to pick them up from an authoritative source, like a professor. They then go on their merry way adding and subtracting such ideas as are considered authoritative without ever knowing for themselves if they are true or not. We saw a good example of this with Brexit a few weeks ago. Many intelligent people were disheartened and intimidated by the vote. They honestly felt the world had taken a step towards The End because of Brexit. This is the natural consequence of their false ideas. But they don’t know they are false. Having been inculcated from their youth, and not being seers, they don’t actually know what ideas about life are true or false. As such, they believe their authorities implicitly. And their authorities told them Brexit was the end of the world.

Seers, on the other hand, see the items themselves and make ideas from them themselves. As such, they are independent minds. This is not a point for ego: it’s simply a fact. Seers have average calculating power, and as such tend to avoid trials of calculating strength. A good example of a seer is Reagan. He could see clearly what had to be done and he did it. He was not a great debater and not an intellectual in the modern sense. He wasn’t a calculator. But knowing the world better than anyone else of his era, he knew what had to be done and did it. Thus he restarted our economy and ended the Cold War, the two biggest issues of his time. But watching him in debates or in discussions, you could see he was uncomfortable around the calculators: he knew he couldn’t match them for calculating power. As such, he tended to avoid them.

Another pair of examples are James Madison and George Washington.

Madison was the nerd of the founding fathers. He was a very high powered calculator, but a poor seer. For a good decade he followed Washington’s thinking. This is because Washington was a very practical, clear sighted man. He was a seer. Madison was not, and as such he needed someone to give him the ideas he was going to process. For a while this was Washington. Afterwards it was Jefferson. This is why Madison’s thinking went through such a violent change during Washington’s second term: he switched mental horses. He stopped thinking of the government as a practical measure to aid the people, as Washington thought. Instead, he picked up the anti-authority thinking of Jefferson, and went about trying down the government he was so helpful in setting up. Thus, in the end, Madison and Washington ended up enemies when they started as friends.

Now, some men, from time to time, are both seers and calculators. As such, they can see the items of the world for themselves and add and subtract items. This gives them an exponential increase in knowledge, because they can both see what is, and, by adding and subtracting, build knowledge through logical deduction. Thus they gain knowledge faster than they learn: every item they learn about, which they do every day, gets applied to what they already know. As such, lines are drawn, and they end up frequently gaining two items of knowledge for every one item of learning.

Men of this type are the great men of history. They aren’t dependent on others either to see the items of the world or to process them. They profit, like everyone else, from the learning of others. But the mainstay, the foundation, of their thinking is their own minds.

A good example of this is Otto von Bismarck, the first Chancellor of Germany. He managed, through diplomacy and carefully orchestrated wars, to unite Germany into one nation. It had been a divided and largely inconsequential group of small countries before his actions. Afterwards, it was the strongest power in central Europe. Bismarck could do this, because he possessed both the ability to see the items of the world, and the ability to add and subtract them from each other. As such, his knowledge of men and affairs, of nations, diplomacy and war, were greater than anyone else at his time. This mental superiority gave him the power he needed to succeed.

There are times in history when a man possesses only one ability or the other, and still does great things. Washington is a good example of this. But most often, the great man is one that can do both. He is a very rare bird indeed. The combination comes into national renown once every few generations, typically.

To recap:

Knowledge is the conversion of the world’s items into ideas.

There are men that can see the items and conceptualize them: they are seers.

There are men that can add and subtract them, drawing inferences from them: they are calculators.

Finally, there’s a very rare breed of man that can do both: he’s the great man of history.

Joni Ernst Essentially Turns Down VP

From, ahem, Politico:

“I made that very clear to him that I’m focused on Iowa. I feel that I have a lot more to do in the United States Senate. And Iowa is where my heart is,” Ernst said Wednesday. “I’m just getting started here. I have a great partner with Chuck Grassley, we’ve been able to accomplish a lot. And I think that President Trump will need some great assistance in the United States Senate and I can provide that.”


Ernst, contrary some silly people, is not a good person for VP. She’s essentially an establishmentarian. Anyone that has a great partnership with Chuch Grassley isn’t good for the country as VP.

Besides, I’m tired of her “mamma grizzly” nonsense. It started with Palin and Ernst has sort of adopted it. Surprisingly, many men have too. They have this bizarre liking for “strong” women, which just comes out to pushy women. Ernst is neither intelligent nor a good leader. Women generally aren’t good leaders. They aren’t made that way. As such, a “strong” woman is just a woman who shoves herself into the conversation.

I’m glad to see Ernst has taken herself out of consideration.

To explain my thinking a bit:

A leader is someone that can see what should be done. He is someone that knows how the world turns.

Imagine the world as a merry-go-round. We have to jump onto it or jump off of it as circumstances dictate. Now, a man that knows when and how to jump onto it can lead. But someone that doesn’t know and yet still wants to lead is just pushy.

Life, to many people, is chaos. It’s a swirling mass of thing going by too fast and with too little detail to be understood. As such, they follow leaders. Leaders are men who can see how the world is, and who have the strength to act on it.

Now, there are some people that want to be leaders, but who lack that critical ability to see. As such, they are just ignoramuses that are trying to push themselves to the top. We call them blowhards, egotists, and more impolite things. The reason is because we all know and feel the need for someone that can see. As such, we hate counterfeiters. We hate people that shove themselves into the conversation without anything to give. They’re just there because they like the laurels that leaders get.

History is full of men that didn’t see but wanted to be leaders anyhow. The earth is full of the graves of their followers.

There are also many men who did see. Take for instance George Washington, Bismarck, Churchill, Reagan. These men are rightly celebrated. One because they deserve it. But two because, by holding the real thing in front of our eyes constantly, we have a strong sense of what isn’t the real thing. People like Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Mitch McConnell: these are all pretenders. They all want to lead, because they like the rewards. But they don’t have the critical vision necessary to lead. They are blind leading the blind.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with being blind. But a blind man shouldn’t try to lead. That’s why our politics is so frustrating in America: the few people who aren’t simply bought and paid for have no idea what they’re doing. They aren’t in politics because they know what to do and they’re there to do it. No. They’re there for the laurels. They usually end up complete, frustrating failures.

So that is why I don’t like Ernst. She’s a pushy, headstrong woman that wants to lead, but hasn’t the critical ability to see. As such, she’s no use to America as a politician.


Science’s Destruction of Knowledge

Science, by its nature, is too restraining for us. By demanding that only demonstrable things be considered true, it cuts out those things which we know but can’t prove beyond our knowing them.

For instance, we know we shouldn’t kill. But how can you prove that it shouldn’t be done? People accept that we shouldn’t, and so the issue goes unnoticed. But that’s because it’s inherently in us.

Take something less stark. Say that children should have their parents raise them. Now this is clear to the man that’s looking. But to those that want to pretend otherwise, it’s not too hard. Since child rearing isn’t an exact science, it’s easy for them to pretend there’s no one way to do it. In this way, they justify having the government raise children, as is more and more the case with government daycare and more time spent at school.

Science, by cutting out all that isn’t demonstrable, has cut our knowledge up. It has removed from the realm of legitimacy the intuitions we have about life. As such, we’re intellectually destitute. Without the wealth of knowledge that comes from intuition, we’re lost. That’s one of the major reasons that the modern era is such an ignorant one.