Abstract: Aristotle was, in many ways, a great philosopher, and even, one should dare to say, a great scientist. Aside from all his philosophical work, Aristotle contributed immensely to logic, biology and mathematics (Aristotle mentioned, crucially, non-Euclidean geometry theorems demonstrated… a century before Euclid).

However, Aristotle substituted to the supremacy, and rule, of freedom, openness, intelligence, fostered by the vote of We The People, democracy, real democracy, the “pursuit of happiness“, and a meek general “feel good” (eudemonia) “wisdom”. So doing, Aristotle demolished the supremacy of the natural, instinctual, fiercely debating human ethics, which had triumphed in Athenian civilization for the two preceding centuries… and replacing by the acceptation of plutocracy… A plutocracy led by his Macedonian sponsors, friends, and students..

The love of Aristotle for the dictatorship of one (“monarchy”, he called it) fatally weakened the animal spirits, the mass human ethology, without which democracy is impossible (that involves the love of debate, a form of combat distinct from eudemonia).

Thus, more fundamentally than even Christianity, and not just by defending slavery extensively, Aristotle and his atrocious, mass murdering, yet trusted, and beloved, pupils, students and friends, launched the mental processes that pulled civilization back for millennia in the direction of oligarchy, villainy, mass despondency, crushing stupidity, formidable theocracy and overwhelming fascism.

It’s high time to understand how much of this Aristotelian garbage, incompatible with democratic civilization, festers at the root of today’s systems of thoughts and moods. All the more as plutocracy, Aristotle’s baby, is going all out, once again, to seize power absolutely.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, SPA, for short, were master thinkers. Their influence was so great, they changed human psychology, in the master civilizations, for millennia to come. However the way SPA changed human ethology, in some important ways, towards submission to self-proclaimed elites, civilization cannot tolerate, let alone like it. If civilization liked submission to the few, it would be self-destructive. Submission to the few, to an oligarchy, is the most likely demolition mechanism of most civilizations.

And this cultural inheritance of SPA, towards submission, is precisely what we have seen all too much after SPA’s poisonous influence infected souls… for the last twenty-four centuries.


Aristotle Taught These Guys Democracy Was A Devious Beast

Aristotle Taught These Two Guys Above That Democracy Was A Devious Beast

[Painting Allegedly Representing Macedonian Plutocrats Antipater and Craterus Killing a Lion; these are the Antipater and Craterus found in the present text; top predators, indeed; shortly before Alexander The Great died, Alexander had ordered Antipater, then ruling Europe, to come to Babylon to answer the charges of Olympias, Alexander’s mom, that Antipater was conspiring to seize power; Antipater refused to come, and sent another of his sons in his stead; his youngest son was Alexander’s closest valet… More on this further down. Yes, at the time, there were lions in the Middle East, and in Europe.]



In 330 BCE, more than 23 centuries ago, the Spartans, led by king Agis, made an all-out effort to destroy Macedonian hegemony. The prospects were good: Antipater had only 13,500 genuine Macedonian soldiers, as Alexander, then fighting the Persian plutocracy, had mobilized all the manpower he could find, to fight far away all over Eurasia. Alexander, though, sent lots of gold in a hurry, so that Antipater could recruit a huge army of northern barbarians to boost his small force.

These were strange times: for about a century much of the elite of the Persian army consisted of Greek mercenaries. Moreover, most Greeks had refused to follow Alexander. No doubt that the fact Alexander had annihilated the city-state of Thebes, and sold 30,000 surviving women and children into slavery, had to do with it. Some of the Persian plutocrats were bad, but the Macedonian plutocrats, in many ways, were worse. The Persians managed an immensely complicated empire, the Macedonians just had to keep (their slaves) extracting the gold, while breeding horses to keep invading further with ever more violence.

The Battle of Megalopolis against Antipater’s 40,000 mercenaries was bloody, long indecisive. But, from the sheer weight of numbers, the 20,000 Spartans, after breaking Antipater’s lines, lost. 5,300 of the best ones died. Diodorus comments:

“Agis III had fought gloriously and fell with many frontal wounds. As he was being carried by his soldiers back to Sparta, he found himself surrounded by the enemy. Despairing of his own life, he ordered the rest to make their escape with all speed and to save themselves for the service of their country, but he himself armed and rising to his knees defended himself, killed some of the enemy and was himself slain by a javelin cast.”

So what was Athens doing while Sparta led the entire Peloponnese against Macedonia? Nothing. Athens sat on her hands. A wounded Spartan king fought, even on his knees, while Athens watched. Some derangement had infected Athena’s city. Was it still Athena’s city? Or was it the city of admirers, friends, lovers, advisers and teachers to tyrants? In spite of a blitz by Demosthenes, the pseudo-Demosthenes, and other philosophers, who saw the terrible danger civilization was in, Athens did not send an army to help Sparta. There is no doubt that the smallest Athenian army would have allowed to extirpate the Macedonian metastatic cancer, all the way to where it festered from, Macedonian gold mines.

If that had happened, the history of the world would have been different, and the event would be barely mentioned in Alpha Centauri libraries. (Just before the Macedonian tyrannical takeover, Greek science was expanding at an astounding rate.)

Once he was rid of Alexander, the senior Macedonian general and dictator Antipater, turned against Athens.

The fate of democracy was decided on the sea. The Athenian fleet, having suffered losses in two battles, surrendered. It did not even try to fight to death. The captains of the Athenian ships were not as determined as their ancestors, who, 170 years earlier, had confronted the Persian fleet and its Greek allies, under incomparably greater odds.



Historians are at a loss to explain that massive change of psychology. Why did Athens not fight for freedom in 330 CE, while it had gone all out for it in 500 CE?

Some may suggest that Alexander and Antipater were not as antipathic as Darius and Xerxes. Well that is not even true: the massacres the two Macedonians engaged in were worse. The Persian plutocracy found plenty of Greeks to help it, over a century, including all of Sparta for decades, and generations of top notch mercenaries. By contrast, very few Greeks accepted to work for the Greek speaking Macedonian tyrants, and Sparta always refused to do so.

So, when the Athenian captains decided to surrender to Antipater, without much fighting, it was not because they did not perceive him to be a monster. They knew he was a monster. It was widely suspected, for excellent reasons and strong circumstantial evidence, that Antipater had used one of his sons to empoison Alexander.

Something else had happened to change the psychology of the Athenian elite: accepting monstrosity had become acceptable. Thanks to whom? Aristotle’s student, Alexander (“the great”)? No, he was too busy crucifying thousands in Tyr for having dared to resist him. Nor was Alexander known for intellectual babbling (whereas Antipater was an author).

My explanation for this degeneracy in the minds of Athenian warriors, and statesmen, is that, thanks to the pernicious influence of the troika Socrates-Plato-Aristotle, Athenians changed their notion of superior wisdom.



The freedom that had made their ancestors, and other Greeks stand on the pinnacle of civilization, had been displaced by an obsession with self-flourishing (“Eudaimonism”).

An ethical system where Eudaimonia, that is good (eu) spirits (daimon) is viewed as the highest good, is the door to materialism and the lowest passions.

the problem about the pursuit of happiness as the highest good, is that human beings out-lion, lions. Let’s have Conan the Barbarian (1982) lead the charge against Aristotle’s pursuit of happiness:

“Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?

Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.

Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?

Conan: Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.

Mongol General: That is good! That is good.”

[Thanks “Wtquinn” a commenter from Scientia Salon!]

The point: our ancestors have been top predators for a few million years. A top predator, at some point, will take pleasure in deploying top ferocity. Lionesses and wolves have been seen adopting orphan baby preys, out of goodness, and that clearly make them happy. But, still, their business is ferocity.

One needs to base one’s ethics on a more stable base than one’s own perception of what constitute happiness.



An ethical system where dying for freedom is the highest calling is very different from one where one is pursuing the vague notion of “happiness”, and “self-flourishing”. Were the 300 with king Leonidas happy at Thermopylae? Yes! Why? They were happy to die for freedom. They were not just into their little self-flourishing as the Athenian captains confronting Antipater’s armada would be 170 years later.

The happiness of Themistocles’ sailors at the Battle of Salamis while their city burned in the background, and the invader Xerxes watched from a throne, came from fighting for causes bigger than themselves, freedom and justice. If they had been pursuing happiness, they would have fled, as Aristotle, faced with freedom and justice, did. Instead Themistocles’ men confronted a thousand ships.

Human beings cannot just pursue self-flourishing, because, instinctually, or as we moderns say, ethologically, human beings have evolved to make others in the group flourish, as an even higher good.

Salamis was perhaps the most important battle in the history of civilization. That’s when freedom looked for a fight, and broke the back of plutocracy, in spite of overwhelming odds.

375 freedom ships confronted a plutocratic armada of 1200. But the Greeks had better equipment, better training, better spirits, their cause was just, freedom on their sides. Born free, they knew how to swim (most Persians did not). The narrow confines prevented the vast Persian fleet to maneuver, and surround them.

The entire population of Athens had been moved to the island of Salamis. Themistocles had around 200 Athenian warships. When his Peloponnesian allies threatened to fold, he threatened to move the entire population of Athens to the Western Mediterranean (this is how Marseilles, Massilia, had been founded from Phocea). Athens had a colony there, Athenopolis (unfortunately called Saint Tropez nowadays).

Or, at least, this is what the immensely clever Themistocles succeeded to make Xerxes believe.

In one of the best plots ever written, Themistocles, using this sort of subtle disinformation and outright lies, misled emperor Xerxes into battle, in spite of the objections of the much more clever Artemisia, evil queen of Halicarnassus, commanding the fiercest squadron of the plutocratic fleet.

It does not take much to influence a human mind. Themistocles knew this, and played with Xerxes’ as a cat with a mouse. Artemisia, an experienced warrior, clearly saw that the battle in the narrow confines between the island and the mainland was an unnecessary risk.



Those who advocate that Socrates, Plato and Aristotle could not have possibly sabotaged civilization understand little to the power of the mind.

Generally, it goes like this: when one points at their philosophical failures, such as the advocacy of dictatorship by Plato, their partisans smirk that the fact that the fact the philosopher spent years with the tyrant of Syracuse has nothing to do with it (see Massimo’s intervention in the preceding essay).

However, the failure of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were not personal accidents (such as Francois Villon murdering a priest). Socrates’ courageous battle exploits and death are shining examples. Plato, and Aristotle exhibited personal courage, close and personal, licking the toes, of some of the worst tyrants in history.

Socrates, Plato and Aristotle’s failure was systemic, not personal. And it’s all of the same kind. They replaced freedom, equality, and brotherhood with an obsession with taking care of the oligarchic self. Instead it is the greater primacy that they accorded to some values which devalued.

The Athenian fleet was defeated at the Battle of Amorgos (322 BCE) and failed in stopping reinforcements to reach Antipater.

The Athenian and allied democrats were finally defeated in 322 BCE at the Battle of Crannon in central Thessaly helped by another Macedonian gangster, Craterus. They beat back the weary Athenians in a long series of cavalry and hoplite engagements. Once again, their spirits failed the Athenians. While they were not routed, Athens and her allies, spurning Demosthenes strident, and cogent warnings, sued for peace on Antipater’s terms.

Antipater forced Athens to dissolve her government and establish a plutocratic system in its stead. Only those possessing 2,000 drachmas or more could remain citizens. The Demos was viewed, correctly, by the Macedonians, as the cause of the war.

But the Demos wanted to be free, and Aristotle wanted slaves.



The very failure of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, made their success. The common denominator ethics that they promoted was favorable to tyrants, and that it is precisely why their work survived through the Dark Ages. Whereas those who defended freedom, equality and democracy were extinguished by the Christian censors and their plutocratic sponsors.

Am I advocating a return to some kind of paleo-state and, or, instinctual ethics?

Well, yes. Except it’s not a return, because we never left. We are what we are. Human ethology exists, and is a subset of primate ethology. We are 60 million years of evolution as primates.

What is the basic principle, the fundamental evolutionary force, of a primate? Higher, superior intelligence. How do we get it? Through independent minds then allowing their ideas to compete inside vast cultural system. Only openness, freedom and justice enable this independence. This was all pointed out in Pericles’ famous Funeral Oration. So it’s not like the plutocratic troika of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, never heard of the notion.

Instead, what Pericles celebrated, the glory of the all-thinking Demos, was exactly the opposite of what Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Antipater wanted.

Pericles was on the winning side, the side of Instinctual Ethics.

Monkey studies show that “instinctual ethics” is a fact. (Whatever “instinct” really mean: it could actually be logic masquerading as innate!) To talk about ethics without that fact front and central would be like talking about atoms, while discounting anything that may have been discovered after Lucretius.

Aristotle was the first biologist. He invented categories, now at the forefront of mathematics, where they increasingly replace old fashion algebra, by lifting up its essence into richer structures.

The ethical attacks of Socrates against (direct) democracy were always justified. What was not justified was the lack of temperance that made him throw the baby, democracy, with some of the problems it caused.

The intellectual troika from hell was all the more dangerous, that those were master thinkers. Aristotle was the first biologist. He invented categories, now at the forefront of mathematics, where they increasingly replace old fashion algebra, by lifting up its essence into richer structures.

The ethical attacks of Socrates against (direct) democracy were justified. What was not justified was the lack of temperance that made him throw the baby, democracy, with the bath, into the trash.



Their influence is still all too great, and solidly tied to minimizing the phenomenon of plutocracy, and how it influences people. A few hours ago, I met with an engineer, who reigns over a major international airport, a man of many languages and many countries. I fumed against Aristotle, but he told me: ”Yes, but we owe him everything!”

The exact opposite is true. Although the troika from hell made important contributions, it was much more important to have democracy survive and prosper.

Democracy is intelligence. If Athens had survived, and established a second, larger empire, displaced and replaced Rome, civilization could well have got millennia ahead… Although, of course, slavery would have had to be outlawed, be it only because it blocked technological progress (by discouraging and out-competing it).

So let’s sink the ethics of good spirits. Aristotle’s eudemonia. Instead let’s pursue the grim war of freedom against plutocracy, and the hellish superstitions which support it.

Some will smirk that plutocracy is not everything. But that’s like saying metastatic cancer is not everything. By killing the freedom of spirits, plutocracy kills what makes humans human and replaces it with the stupidity of primitive beasts.

History demonstrates this: Greek science, not just philosophy, tragedy (etc.) peaked immediately before Antipater, as Alexander’s executive regent, organized the fascist “Hellenistic” plutocratic dictatorships which ruled until the Roman Republic, a democracy, swept them away.

And peaked science did. In the last year of the Fourth Century BCE, Aristarchus proposed the heliocentric system, Euclid wrote the Elements, Archimedes invented Infinitesimal Calculus, and the Greek number system came very close to the one we use today.

Aristotle classifies democracy, the rule of We The People, as a deviant constitution. Being a crafty polemicist, he gives it a bone by saying in Politics III.11, that the multitude may be better than the virtuous few, sometimes. But that’s in an ocean of praise for aristocracy.

When he died in 322 BC, Aristotle named his student Antipater as executor-in-charge of his will. And what a will: destroy democracy, establish plutocracy. Enough said about Aristotle’s ethics.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,


  1. englishtuitiononskype Says:

    Hi Patrice, nathan daniel curry here. Curious how you map what you wrote above to the wikipedia article I shared on your timeline recently. About Spengler’s Decline of the West. His analysis of democracy as a foil for plutocratic capitalists?


    • gmax Says:

      Methinks Patrice never read the “Decline of the West”. She never, ever talks about it


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I am not very present on Facebook. Actually quasi not at all is more like it. What’s coming out there is generated automatically. Although I do answer to the notices I see, many are blocked by my present email system, I do not know why.
      Most of my effort(s) is around my site, so it’s good you comment here directly.

      To equate democracy and plutocracy is grotesque: read the end of my essay on Aristotle. However, equating democracy to tyranny, or, certainly a “deviant”, nasty regime, is found loud and clear in Aristotle (let alone Polybius, 2 centuries later).


  2. englishtuitiononskype Says:

    Specifically this section:

    Spengler asserts that democracy is simply the political weapon of money, and the media is the means through which money operates a democratic political system. The thorough penetration of money’s power throughout a society is yet another marker of the shift from Culture to Civilization.

    Democracy and plutocracy are equivalent in Spengler’s argument. The “tragic comedy of the world-improvers and freedom-teachers” is that they are simply assisting money to be more effective. The principles of equality, natural rights, universal suffrage, and freedom of the press are all disguises for class war (the bourgeois against the aristocracy). Freedom, to Spengler, is a negative concept, simply entailing the repudiation of any tradition. In reality, freedom of the press requires money, and entails ownership, thus serving money at the end. Suffrage involves electioneering, in which the donations rule the day. The ideologies espoused by candidates, whether Socialism or Liberalism, are set in motion by, and ultimately serve, only money. “Free” press does not spread free opinion—it generates opinion, Spengler maintains.

    Spengler admits that in his era money has already won, in the form of democracy. But in destroying the old elements of the Culture, it prepares the way for the rise of a new and overpowering figure: the Caesar. Before such a leader, money collapses, and in the Imperial Age the politics of money fades away.

    Spengler’s analysis of democratic systems argues that even the use of one’s own constitutional rights requires money, and that voting can only really work as designed in the absence of organized leadership working on the election process. As soon as the election process becomes organized by political leaders, to the extent that money allows, the vote ceases to be truly significant. It is no more than a recorded opinion of the masses on the organizations of government over which they possess no positive influence whatsoever.

    Spengler notes that the greater the concentration of wealth in individuals, the more the fight for political power revolves around questions of money. One cannot even call this corruption or degeneracy, because this is in fact the necessary end of mature democratic systems.

    On the subject of the press, Spengler is equally as contemptuous. Instead of conversations between men, the press and the “electrical news-service keep the waking-consciousness of whole people and continents under a deafening drum-fire of theses, catchwords, standpoints, scenes, feelings, day by day and year by year.” Through the media, money is turned into force—the more spent, the more intense its influence.

    For the press to function, universal education is necessary. Along with schooling comes a demand for the shepherding of the masses, as an object of party politics. Those that originally believed education to be solely for the enlightenment of each individual prepared the way for the power of the press, and eventually for the rise of the Caesar. There is no longer a need for leaders to impose military service, because the press will stir the public into a frenzy, clamor for weapons, and force their leaders into a conflict.

    The only force which can counter money, in Spengler’s estimation, is blood. As for Marx, his critique of capitalism is put forth in the same language and on the same assumptions as those of Adam Smith. His protest is more a recognition of capitalism’s veracity, than a refutation. The only aim is to “confer upon objects the advantage of being subjects.”


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Marx was using jargon that originated in Kant (if your quote is from him). Marx missed the main problem, so it’s missed to this day: it’s about banks (Marx mentioned them as “monopolies”, and that’s correct, but he needed to dig, he did not, and to this day, people don’t; I have the book of Piketty, but did not read it; on my sites, way back, the banking system is properly described.)


      • englishtuitiononskype Says:

        No that quote is from Wikipedia’s entry on Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West.

        It has nothing to do with Marx at all. No idea where you got Marx. He is not even mentioned. I would encourage you to read that entry on the decline of the west in wikipedia.

        Spengler was Joseph Campbell’s greatest influence. I have found no historian of human thought (apart from yourself) who gets the grand sweep of history the way Spengler did. Read the entry on wikipedia and you can put his statements into context. What we call democracy in the modern age is not. It is plutocracy and he explains why. What you call democracy does not exist in the corporate age (except perhaps in a kibbutz).

        Marx to me was an understandable product of his times. He failed to understand the need for emotional intelligence and so all things that flowed from him yielded dictators and not benign ones. His theory was awesome when the aristocrats were in power (ie as a remedy). But it overlooked capacity and jealousy. Right education is essential to a sane society and the Greeks knew that. I give more credit to Socrates than you do. And Plato for me is the only way to understand the deep mystic that was Jesus Christ. His book the Cave is essential to Christ’s mysticism. The church is lost in literal interpretation.

        Your essay above is how foundational thinkers shaped the world to come but I question some of its logic. Take the Templar Knights. They became immensely wealthy by creating the modern banking system by offering protected passage to the Holy Land. They had noble beginnings but money and power corrupted them.

        To blame the problems of the world on bad philosophy is sound. But, as such, systems cannot solve humanity’s problems. Only an individual intent on finding virtue in himself can do that.

        I get your point though that the logic of Aristotle was founded on a plutocratic model rather than a democratic one. You Patrice are one of the greatest intellects I have come across but your cleverness is often rich in dark and hateful tomes for the more fucked up representatives of humanity. It is understandable. And it follows that you struggle with the passive logic of the Buddha and the societies the group think that grew up around his iconic model spawned.

        I agree with you that we have much to owe the Franks. amor or romance was born of the troubadours in the 12 th century. If there is a key difference between the Orient and the West it is the ID and this sense that we as individuals are unique in all of creation.

        The Orient is much more driven by a fatalistic surrender to the guru’s programming. It often works but it also often leads to undeveloped people not thinking for themselves propped up by the adherence to the logics of a charismatic teacher.

        There is often this analysis in history of an enlightened Greek logic copied by the Romans and then Christ and then centuries of bloody darkness and then the renaissance. What you say here is that the Western civilisation is founded on Greek wisdom. It is. Spengler argues though that it is a late comer to the table and it will be eclipsed by the Orient. It is my sense and I reckon yours that that might be so to an extent but that China is like a very scared child. In the West we have a much greater freedom of press and though many of the actions that happen are born of fear mongering in the press there is still the freedom of speech. This is not there in China. They suppress anything that weakens the party line.

        So though I think Spengler is right about the Orient being the next dominant power, I also strongly believe that the Western individualism and ingenuity is still desperately needed (though I nod to your recent article about the backwardness of our youth’s math compared to China).


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Nathan: I got Marx from the end of your second comment. As I know Marx better than Spenger (and that’s easy to do, as I know Spenger not at all!), I commented on what I view as Marx’s greatest flaw: not contemplating the banking system in depth.
          This Spenger analysis of yours is taking me pretty flat-footed. I obviously should look into his work, from what you say. But I have had little time in the last few days. In any case thanks for telling me, and I will comment more soon.

          Master thinkers such as Aristotle guide the world. In the case of Aristotle, the guidance is not difficult to unveil: he was part of the leading gang, Antipater was family. That explains why he was so pro-aristocratic/plutocratic: it was totally self-serving.

          We may as well have Antipater himself talking… And Antipater actually made a history treaty and a few other works!


    • gmax Says:

      Very interesting. Some of it surprising: Spencer had brains! I thought he wad a racist son of a bitch. Superiority of the white protestant church type of stuff.

      Caveat: the claim that democracy is tyranny goes back to Socrates. It is a trick from the oligarchs. Socrates did not have to be an oligarch, he slept with them


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Yeap. Don’t know what to make of Spenger, I thought he was a bad guy…


        • englishtuitiononskype Says:

          I think Spengler has this kind of Wagerian twist. He has a lot of interesting stuff to say but he is a little too right wing. You put it well Gmax. He is a racist son of a bitch in a way. Just as Wagner has been tainted by the Nazi interest in art and movements (specifically the ring cycles). Yes, Spengler has his element of Nazi propaganda about him by his own devices (rather than foisted upon him like Wagner by third parties). BUT he has this grand sweep of history and this delineation between culture and civilisations and the great sweep of histories. Patrice does this too. But I think he could do a better job in many ways. Certainly his writings at times have the aura of a man setting the cycles and movements into perspective and reminding us how great forces of time and space and mind and ideas can shape cultures and birth civilizations and create great vacuums or dark spots in the march forth of evolutions; and how moments of enlightenment and renaissance shape destinies when insight and humanism shine forth against the darker forces of fear and plutocratic greed.


          • gmax Says:

            According to Nietzsche, Wagner BECAME a racist, disgusting son of a bitch, and he wrote a whole book about it: “Nietzsche contra Wagner”. Nazism sprang from Wagner, Bismarck, Prussia


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            There are dozens, if not hundreds of pages in Nietzsche about the Decline of Germany, riveted by herd instinct, indeed.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            The very concept of “Decline of the West” is complex. What is presently happening is rather the triumph of (Europe/USA created) Representative Oligarchy. Worldwide. However RO is unstable, and is tipping over into plutocracy. Grand sweep of history was also found in Hegel, grand sweep of semantics, in Kant, grand sweep of psychology in Nietszche, etc. Anyway, more later.


  3. gmax Says:

    Wow! I’m sure you will win a popularity contest with academic philosophers, in the most hated category.

    How come these things are not taught, ever? Plutocracy, anyone?

    That’s not your first attack against Aristotle. You don’t like his logic, either..


  4. dominique deux Says:

    So much to learn from your posts, as usual. So little time to respond, and not really feeling up to the task.

    So I’m just commenting the pretty illustration. Those plutos were fit, that’s for sure.

    Let’s picture the Koch brothers, bare-ass naked, going after a lion with sword and lance. Butt-ugly, but the lion would stand a real chance!

    I’ll add that your depiction of a quick de-moralization of an ethically advanced country feels much too close to the French experience for comfort. And we don’t have a troïka (btw I lay claim to the use of that word for the Infamous Three) but a whole swarm of nefarious feelgood thinkers.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes you got the idea of the troika and I flew away with it like a gypaete. Troika sounds like Putin, and is better than the “triumvirs, triumvirate” I used before… Because the latter 3 had more excuses. The situation was bad in Republican Rome, and the initially pretty reasonable requests of the Triumvirs were unreasonably rejected by the Senate… And explained because said Senate was full of plutocrats.

      The case of the philosophical troika was completely different: the three took deliberately the side of plutocracy…. And the worst is that nobody called them on it. To this day. The reaction among many, from professional philosophers to road dwellers, to my trashing of Aristotle was not really positive…

      Yes France has the feel good disease, instead of the think-hard advantage which used to make her advantage. I could give more details, but at this point I would make enemies during delicate negotiations…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Demoralization has infected all of Europe. In France the philosophers also played the same negative role. However they operated nefariously before. Sartre, De Beauvoir are long dead, and Finkielkraut (say, he got to the Academie) is totally OK. Aristotle was alive and active when the fateful turns were taken.


      • dominique deux Says:

        Do you mean that Finkielkraut is alive and well, or that he is on the side of good philosophy?

        I must confess I am totally digusted with French “New Philosophers”, starting with Bernard-Henri Lévy, but I never really bothered to check which was saying what.

        Finkielkraut’s obscene fawning to Sarkozy and the neocons is reason enough for me to ignore him, exactly like Sartre’s cuddlyness (sp?) with Nazi occupation, then Stalinist propaganda, was enough to disqualify his ethical musings (and I used to like him).

        So call me superficial… I’m an ignorant and I try to manage my ignorance by carefully choosing my fields of ignorance.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Finkielkraut is himself deeply disgusted, so maybe you should have tea. Finkielkraut is OK. Boring, but OK. Better than Badiou, that’s for sure: between fawning for Heidegger-Hitler-Stalin-Mao-Putin and Sarkozy, unfortunately, Sarkozy is better. The main problem of Sarkozy is that he is clown. A Pluto connected one, a family affair, sure. And I sincerely hope he does not come back. I prefer Melanchon or Juppe’ (!!!) anytime.

          What actually I would prefer is to vote big time every 3 months as the Swiss do. The results yesterday were very interesting, they had to do with health insurance. 4 cantons, the 100% French ones, voted for STATE health insurance. It’s kind of a vote against (a better version of) Obamacare.

          Swiss population just jumped to 8,136, 000, thanks mostly to 85,000 new immigrants naturalized. France has near zero immigration at this point. Finkielkraut’s parents were immigrants/refugees. I would be president, I would open 100% the borders to “Arab” (speaking) Christians fleeing the Middle East. But then, of course, there is no work, because of all the so called austerity (more like organized destitution).


          • Kevin Berger Says:

            Thanks God for Sarko’s return. I mean, he’s a clown, and he’s poison, and he’s been terrible for France. But, my elderly grandmother has a crush on him, and it makes her happy. The proverbial silver lining.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            to tell the truth, I’m happy to see Sarko the clown back. Just his hilarious face does it. His self assurance. Lots in common with W Bush. I mean even Hitler or stalin amuse me; to think so many very serious people took them seriously!

            And Aristotle is the same problem: I was surprised how aggressive some philosophers got in their defense of Aristotle! The funny part, is that I spent much more than a decade studying CATEGORY theory.
            The idea pretty much lay fallow for 23 centuries after Aristotle suggested it (the very very root). In math it finally got fire AFTER I studied it hard for a few years (people thought I was a mental retard to do so).


    • Kevin Berger Says:

      Ne pouvant commenter utilement ce billet, je vais juste saisir la “dé-moralisation” (de la France) mentionnée par DD, pour en trahir le sens, et dériver vers ce que je crois être une “démoralisation” (toujours de la France). En français dans le texte, s’agissant d’une affaire de famille.

      Désolé si je suis un peu confus avec ce qui suit, mais j’ai désormais un certain âge, et toute ma vie, je n’aurais connu qu’une France moralement vaincue, défaitiste, petite, honteuse d’elle-même,… un air du temps visant à la négation du pays, de son histoire, de ses habitants, inculqué par les divertissements, l’enseignement, l’information, calqué sur un modèle étranger qui est au fond hostile à la France, et qui a je le crains porté ses fruits – la question étant plutôt : peut-il y avoir guérison? Y a-t-il seulement encore une France, un “mythe national”, une Nation? (Si on me pardonne cette grandiloquence.)

      Enfin, quoi qu’il en soit, il y a à mes yeux une “machine à détricoter” la Nation, au vu, au su, et avec l’agrément, de tous, ou presque.
      La vie politique, intellectuelle et médiatique Française depuis 30-40 ans est suicidaire, pas d’autre mot, j’espère simplement que les élites qui en portent la responsabilité servent d’autres intérêts et agissent en connaissance de cause, plutôt que stupidement aveuglées et/ou corrompues.
      Des traitres plutôt que des idiots, par pitié.

      Normalement, c’est là que DD intervient et corrige, et il me faut admettre apprécier énormément ses interventions (passées) at the Economist, qui démontent avec esprit – et en général un meilleur Anglais que les intervenants anglophones – les mauvaises raisons des attaques contre le candidat Hollande, l’économie française, le “modèle français”…
      Mais… d’un autre côté, comment avoir le moindre respect pour la gauche française – ou la droite, d’ailleurs? Pour Taubira? Pour le mariage pour tous? Pour toute cette impuissance et ce mépris, cette hypocrisie… et puis ces os “societaux” jetés aux publics choisis, pour faire semblant d’agir?
      Impossible de ne pas espèrer que cette France là, la seule que j’ai jamais connue, en oppostion à ce que la France peut être, qu’elle implose pour de bon.
      Auquel cas, vive le FN, et advienne que pourra, si c’est le seul moyen d’en finir.
      Dominique II a connu le gaullisme, le PCF encore vivant, il peut donc secouer la tête devant les “mort aux cons” qui souhaitent le trouble (et mon petit confort, alors?), je le comprends.
      Mais, quoi, alors? De toute façon, si un jour il y a “guérison”, celà s’accompagnera de terribles déchirements collectifs and individuels; je ne fantasme pas ici sur la guerre civile ou autre clichés, je pense davantage à des vérités acquises de nôtre temps allant rejoindre celles du passé.

      En espérant ne pas avoir été trop confus (nid de grosses têtes ici), ni trop ridicule (pour commenter de nouveau à l’occasion, sans avoir trop honte).


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        je vais reflechir a tout cela. Aujourd’hui je suis furieux contre l’ecole francaise (qui a la theorie que, quand on 5 ans, L’Enfant DOIT s’amuser; ils ne comprennent pas que l’ecole est l’endroit ou on apprend, a compter, lire, ecrire; ils pensent que c’est la ou on “socialise”).

        J’ai retire’ ma fille de l’ecole chinoise pour la mettre a la francaise, et elle perdu imediatement deux ans de development. Probleme: madame Belcassem, une Marocaine, decide du cerveau en France (j’abrege). Je suis pas raciste, mais intellectualiste. Quand je vois Belcassem jacasser, j’ai envie de rejoinder le Jihad, Putin, le FN, enfin faire quelquechose de drastique. Donc est-ce Belcassem et son programme de socialization en cause pour tous ces francais jhadistes?

        Non que c’est sa faute, elle est juste le dernier symbole absurde: ca dure depuis des decennies…


      • dominique deux Says:

        Hello Kevin, nice to know my sallies on enemy ground at TE had an audience.

        Your understanding of demoralization is exactly mine.

        And yes, we are facing traitors, not idiots. The one saving grace of the French right was that it used to stand for France; now it stands for its wilful destruction.

        My own support for the EU, despite its horrendous shortcomings and own betrayals, stems from the fact that I feel France’s values, culture and essence will be better nurtured and survive to fight another day iwithin its framework than in the merciless hands of its current masters – PS, UMP, MEDEF and FN, all of which are herding us towards Chinese-US serfdom.

        I’ll never ever write or think “long live the FN”, but a five-year stint with these thugs might indeed provide the necessary electroshock.

        Or not… As Péguy put it, “nous autres civilisations savons que nous somme mortelles”.


        • dominique deux Says:

          I should qualify the above by stating that some of the “societal bones” you lament, such as homosexual marriage, IMHO fit perfectly well in the Republic’s core values, while its opponents have demonstrated that their militant fringe is firmly seeped in Joseph de Maistre, le Duc d’Artois and other sinister luminaries of foreign-funded and aided sedition.

          I’m a Breton. In Western France, the Vendée war never ceased. And I’ve chosen my side, like my town of birth, Nantes, a staunch Republican stronghold.

          Like you I don’t shrink from some grandiloquence!


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            (Many of) Those who scream the highest against homosexual marriage are probably closet homosexual themselves. It’s like Catholic priests with children and other guys: what else, if they go around chanting about love, but don’t love women?
            Some people (Newton) marry only their profession (although he got a lot of mileage from his in-house pretty niece).

            What was the Vendee war about? Jihadism? Coming hysterically to the rescue of God?


          • dominique deux Says:

            There have been vocal opponents to gay rights (in general) who got outed in reprisal, in France and elsewhere.

            However IMHO the main impetus behind that position is the pathological need (in a certain mindset) to control other peoples’ lives – even the invocation of supposed natural or divine laws comes only as a tool towards that end. Treat people like sheep and they’ll grow wool, that’s the idea. “Social control”, the policy of imposing arbitrary values as an enslaving tool, by accustoming people to submit meekly to anything, is very much alive. Many PC rules are just that. So it’s not only the Christian fringe.

            Your question about the Vendee war is not innocent I guess, coming from an historian. The way I see it, the insurgents were not jihadists; they never tried to spread their faith, which was anyway quite widespread already. Their insistence on living it as they thought fit was definitely legitimate. But when pulpit propaganda and Pitt guineas enrolled them against the fledgling Republic, they became a deadly political foe and their defeat was central to the Republic’s survival.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            I did not know that the Pitts, notorious anti-French UK PMs, financed directly the Vendee rebellion.
            I do agree about the picturesque “treat them like sheep, they will grow wool” (I am going to use you as a source of images, in typical greedy fashion, hahaha…)

            Yet, many are simply covering their tracks. Witness the similar phenomenon, of the deputies of Hollande who screamed the loudest against tax evasion practiced it themselves. This sort of mimicry is found a lot in the animal realm. I have a rule that, when somebody starts to talk about something, it indicates they probably have a vested interest in it.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Le probleme, c’est que cela commence a l’education nationale. Teaching, in France, as in the USA has degenerated enormously since its heydays up to say, 1968… (Not that I hate 1968, just the opposite, but it had some bad aspects which were milked by the crafty Plutos).
          It’s interesting to see the UK and Germany making determined efforts in teaching, and it’s showing up in PISA 2012 (published in April 2014).

          In school achievement, Canada and Netherlands are best of the bunch in the West, half way to Shanghai/Singapore. That’s interesting, because they are are hardly hysterical prussianized Koreans.

          I do agree that 5 years of Marine Lepen could have a salvatory effect. That would be better than 5 years of Sarkozy (being there, done that). In some important ways, say immigration, we are basically at the sort of level the FN used to recommend… Junkers, in that spirit, named one of the worst offenders of UKIP, a real LORD, in charge of finance at the EC.


  5. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Krugman’s blog, after he exhibited an ancient Greek statue of a striking look-alike]

    Striking, indeed. 2014 genetic studies show the way back Greek peasants, 8,000 years ago, came from Mesopotamia, though the islands, including Crete (and there is a very old theory the Jews are actually co-descendants with Kurds). Small world.

    Not all ancient Greek intellectuals ought to be revered, though. Where plutocracy came from, Greco-Roman edition:


  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Abstract Sent To Academia.Edu]

    Aristotle was apparently the master mind of the destruction of (direct or not) democracy in Greece, and his nefarious influence extended to Rome. The historical evidence is overwhelming. Why this was not noticed before can be attributed to the dearth of real democracy ever since… Whose best friend is Aristotle himself.


  7. CATEGORIZING the MIND | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] although I accused Aristotle to have demolished democracy and fostered plutocracy through his beloved pets, the mass murdering criminal plutocratic […]


  8. SEXISM HOBBLES CIVILIZATION | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Some will raise their eyebrows, as I accused Aristotle to have fostered monarchism and plutocracy, by teaching directly the plutocrats who extinguished Greek democracy (for 22 centuries!) Thus, Aristotle destroyed democracy. […]


  9. navan Says:

    Very enlightening.
    However, there may be some errors in the dates: BCE, instead of CE ! For instance, it should be 330 BCE, not 330 CE.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Ooopppss.. Thanks Navan, and welcome! I am going back to the essay and try to find the typo. I probably pushed the “B”, but it did not go through… Aristotle is indeed around 330 BCE. Six hundred years later, the Republic, by then a fascist Greco-Roman dictatorship, or monarchy, as wished by Aristotle, was in a sorry state… Especially because nobody wanted to talk about the ideal state.
      If you see any other typo, you are more than welcome, I want my essays to last… Where was it?


  10. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to LfD, November 26, 2014.]

    The main reason why Aristotle became a giant among Master Thinkers: he destroyed democracy.

    … For that the Masters were most grateful, and cherished his writings ever since…


  11. Direct Democracy: Crucial Counterbalance To Vital Security State | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Aristotle, a student of Plato, wrote quite a bit about politics. Differently from Plato who hypocritically brandished the concept of philosophy, Aristotle went all-out for monarchy. His students, friends, executors of his will, were the plutocrats who destroyed Greek democracies, and launched the “Hellenistic States” (which lost on the battlefield, but later won the battles of ideas with the Roman Republic). So Aristotle Destroyed Democracy. […]


  12. Quantum Fraud? | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] dominance by pro-fascist philosophers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) changed the mood from fighting to death for freedom, towards tolerance for fascist leadership […]


  13. PLUTOCRATIC PRINCIPLE MEANS SLAVERY | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] idea is already in Aristotle. Thanks to his intimacy with the world’s mightiest men, that’s how he destroyed democracy. Aristotle thought monarchy was the best organizing principle of society. He conveyed that idea […]


  14. Nation is its epic | EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן Says:

    […] 1) I believe that Athenians and Romans lost their own stories of direct democracy by plutocracy overall, yet, for proximally different mechanisms: Athens was defeated by the students of Aristotle (Alexander, Antipater, Craterus): […]


  15. Wisdom Not An Itch, But Economy Hitching Dark Side, A Gangrene | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Namely, its philosophy failed. It failed because the (Macedonian) military leaders got imprinted on the erroneous, despicable, and lethal philosophy of their friend Aristotle, itself all too inspired by Plato, Socrates, and other golden youth, or their fellow […]


  16. Beyond Cynicism, Reason | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] was indeed true. Plato the chicken let to Aristotle, who was worse: that famed philosopher played a direct role in the destruction of civilization, and why there are still “royals” in England, leading, at least symbolically, the […]


  17. Trump A Demagogue? So What? | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] became the ideal political regimes (for the next 2,000 years). I explained the whole thing in “Aristotle Destroyed Democracy”. Aristotle was the senior, most respected figure, of an impressive number of mass criminals who […]


  18. sdf Says:

    Howdy! Would you mind if I share your blog with my zynga group?

    There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate
    your content. Please let me know. Cheers


  19. Military Industrial Complex: A Necessary Danger To Civilization | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] I explained in “Aristotle Destroyed Democracy” the friendliness of Aristotle to Alexander, Antipater and Krateros, and thus, to the idea of […]


  20. Lucius70 Says:

    I dont think that ARistotle wanted the AThenian Demos to be slaves. When I remember right he was of the opinion that Barbarians and not Greeks are made for slavery due to their lack of Spirit and the non-ability to rule themselves(Asians) or their lack of Intelligence (Northern Barbarians). AT that time there was absolutly no one who argued against slavery as institution and you should really not forget that it were different times. EVen the jews hold slaves Only very few people in AThen were “free”. Then, does freedom not mean freedom? I can chose what I value. FReedom allows me to choose eudamonia as my goal. You argue tht equality is THE natural state, but even Athen had no equality nor did it alwas had equality nor was it brotherly to other citystates or their population (they also did massacres and invaded other states). Archaelogical evidence and primate studies show that equal societies were possible but there always existed other forms of government (that are also natural in that sense like chimpansees and bonobos differ in their ape societies). It is problematic to judge historical tbehavior according to modern moral standards which developed over time through certain experiences and thinkings. THe Macedonians as well as the Athenians, Spartans lived in a dog-eats-dog world where the possible loss of freedom or even extinction was a possibilty. WHen the gauls invaded Rome around 400BC they simply said: we are stronger: thus we want your land. AT that time the Romans were the underdog. WHat did you do to these people after yo defeat them: you know they are unreliable. They will probably attack you again if you let them free. They created great harm and illed and wounded a lot of your own men and raped your women. You have sometimes not even enough food for your own people so you cant give them a life a prison without work what would even be a reward. Put them into slavery was even considered mild compared to execution and allowed the enslaved people to live further and sometimes even procreate and pay off the debt that they created through their enemnity. A lot of slaves were war captives who fought to loot and kill. They would have done the same if they were victorious (this also applies to the socalled “demos” of every state. It sounds harsh to us, but people thought different at that time. No one said: This is unjust. It was considererd just and even friendly. The enslavement of orphans or example was considered humanitarian because otherwise the orphan would have died because there was often no social net that took care of them. Christianity brought most of the humanizing Behaviour that is today considered naturally but was not at that time. The early Christians took care of the poor, the sick, the widows and the orphans. Something that was new and helped to christianize the ancient society.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Lucius 70 and welcome!
      People who study philosophy in the conventional manner are manipulated. They have a picture in their mind of whom Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Rousseau, Heidegger, Hegel, Hume, Locke, etc. are SUPPOSED to be like (or Jefferson, Jesus, etc.)

      I was banned from philosophy sites by people paid to spread this contaminated, and contaminating message. Aristotle was as I said: closest friend, family and tutor of the worst (Antipater, Alexander, Krateros, etc.) Fact is, he fled for his life from Athens. Notice I do not attack several of his contemporaries for whom I have been laudatory (Xenophon, Demosthenes, etc.)

      Some of the statements you made, everybody makes them, but that does not make them right. The (massive, high population) Roman Republic, for example, had few slaves until the Second Punic war. Moreover slavery had different natures depending where and when. The “free” in Athens were 80,000 (males). Slaves were used in the silver mines (which made Athens rich).

      Egypt, too, did without slaves for millennia. After the “People of the Seas” invasion, they enslaved an invading army (the Jews?)

      The Gallic raid which captured Rome was a special case. Notice that, after the Romans evacuated and paid, they re-installed themselves, and the (elected) Roman dictator caught up and annihilated those insolent raiders.

      Christianity did nothing for slavery. Jesus had nothing to say about it (better than the Islamist prophet, who talked extensively about slavery, approving it, and that was indeed better than outright killing the girls… Indeed).

      The Franks outlawed the slave trade of Franks in 655 CE (that is outlawed slavery in Europe).

      Aristotle, Kant, Hitler, etc: I look for the worst statements they made, their worst systems of thoughts, not the picture paid whores in university repeat like sick parrots want us to have. You failed to notice, apparently that I pointed out Antipater imposed PLUTOCRACY (only the richest could vote) in Athens. That came straight from his bed fellow, ARISTOTLE.

      Off with Conventional Propaganda, let’s try something else, that’s what I say.

      Aristotle was a great philosopher and scientist, not like useless Nazi excrement such as Heidegger. This is precisely why the influence of his most erroneous thoughts has been so terrible. Time for freedom, the freedom to see the truth: Aristotle destroyed civilization, and was Jesus’ prophet (Jesus too, loved “Caesar”, like Aristotle loved Alexander, Antipater).


  21. Lucius70 Says:

    My knowledge is limited on these topics (egypt for example, but who build the pyramids, slaves? I dont know, but Egypt had no real enemies unless the “seapeople” whom you mentioned and the hetithes attacked. Maybe it seems: no enemies=no War captives= no slaves. but I am not an expert on this topic) but I do think that ANtipater made first and foremost Politics in macedonian interestest (Phillips or Alexanders) like Perikles, Themistokles or Demosthenes in Athenian Interest and almost every statesman at that time in every state. Alexander needed peace and stabilty in greece to proceed his Persian Campaign and get the flow of supply and manpower for his campaign. If the Macedonian homeland would have been overran, he could not achieved what he achieved. The spartans started an uprising but were defeated and Antipater bought off the Tracians. But how to controll the athenians and other citystates: install puppets because it`s easier to controll for them than an unstable democracy. The result is like you said but I think the motive was simply to proceed macedonian interest. It was the reason of state. ANd what I tried to say is, that this was normal behavior in that time before and was also practised by Athen (for examle during the Pelopennesian War). They tried to establish hegemony and subjugate other cities. The installation o puppet governments was practicized also by other city states like Sparta or Theben and a common practise.

    And something in defense of at least democracy-skepticism at that time: There were some examples of desastrous democratic decision-making at that time in AThen: for example the sicily-expedition during the peloponasian war, the banning of virtous people like Themistokles or Kimon and the power of bad demagoges or the killing of socrates. the AThenian people were easily manipulated and critical obervers came to the conclusion that the problem was in the system. So that it was at least not impossible that reasonable people saw the system as flawed and thought about alternatives like Plato or Aristoteles. Socrates for example was praised for his courrageous non-participation and critical stand during the oligarchic rule of the 30. Plato was definitely not a fan of oligarchic rule and plutocracy.He wrote about these systems (maybe he eve coined the Term”plutocracy”) and criticized them.


    • Gmax Says:

      Egypt got taken over by Nubians for more than a centuries, earlier: BLACK PHARAOHS


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      War with the Hittites was actually before the “People of the Seas”. Ramses II fought them to a draw in present day Syria. After that, the two powers pacified their relation, and became allies. The Hittites were annihilated by the Peoples of the Sea.
      The Macedonians were monsters. Alexander annihilated Thebes, Tyre, Gaza, committing mass atrocities on the way. Thousands crucified in Tyre (a civilization center, which disappeared from history; the commander in Gaza had ropes passed behind his Achilles tendons and was dragged around).

      So learn reality, little one, and raise your moral conscience. Just saying that the Nazis were OK, because they followed their national interest, does not cut it with me. I have heard that monstrosity enough.

      The flaws of Athenian democracy could have been corrected. Actually, they have been corrected. Precisely by considering people such as Aristotle and his boyfriends criminals of the worst sort.

      BTW, few Greeks joined Alexander in the Persian war, and the Spartans, not at all. Alexander had a monument in stone made about it(!). It’s Rome which destroyed Macedonia, but followed the path it had traced… Thanks to the likes of Aristotle…


  22. Lucius70 Says:

    This is mypoint: when we judge them on basis of todays moral standards we forget that it were other times and people thought different. They had certain experiences: (for example that they lived in a dog-eat-dog world without an instance like the UNO or Nato or Uncle Sam who looked for international peace or punished aggressors . EVen when you said an invasion is unjust, you had to deal with it nevertheless. The principle of revenche was even a moral imperative. The Value of Non-Vengeance came through Christianity into the world. The Ancient people were not warweary like us (after three millenials of wars) and especially the AThenians seemed to love to go to war with fellow greeks. EVen when they had problems to replace the manpower they didnt abstain from war. Instead they even discussed to introduce polygamy to produce more men . I have always thought: If the greeks would not have fought so much wars among each other we would have experienced a greek and not roman world. The poeple at that time thought different and what the macedonians did on a big scale did the Athenians on a small scale but also other people like the thebans or the persians (during the persian invasion they subjugated the macedonians who were small and weak at that time and forced them to participate in their campaign but the macedonian king informed the greeks about the Persian plans and helped the greeks.) One experience that shaped Phillips II` worldview as a young man was the experience that either you get subjugated or you subjugate. Athen itself justified its domination attempts through this kind of thinking openly and after weaker states like Melos didnt succumb to athenian Rule consensual, they slaughtered and enslaved its population. gauls and later the germanic people did the same. The case with Theben seems to be true but Alexander later always tried to treat Thebans especially well and do them good. WHile you draw a very strong line between Athen and Macedonia according to modern moral standards, In m oppinion the ancient states resembled each other in their behavior (ot in their political system of cause). I´not a big fan of Nietzsche nor do I think he is completely right in his analysis of the ancient morals but I think he has a point when he tells how the people before Socrates and Christianity (and he includes the democratic Athenians from which he is also a fan) had very different thinking in moral regards and the moral standpoints that you use to critize them were often later introduced through men like Socrates or Christianity or the Enlightenment(and later thinkers).


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I have understood your point of view, with all due respect, I have heard it for decades.
      Your point of view is that we are morally advanced now.
      We are the best.
      Who ever were.
      We are so superior.
      Just before, everybody enslaved everybody, and massacred everybody.
      Just like the Americans did when they invaded the present United States. So Americans were normal, even moral.
      We may even do like clueless stupid propagandized imprinted American college students, and celebrate David Hume (a rabid racist who viewed Black Africans half way between ape and human) as the greatest philosopher.
      Then the second greatest philosopher for today’s clueless American college critters is Kant, the philosopher central to slavery and (what is now known as) Nazism.
      And the third one? The third most popular “philosopher” among American students, 2016?
      Aristotle, the fanatic, greedy “philosopher” of monarchism.
      We can than Aristotle for Queen Elizabeth’s 90th birthday.
      I am of a different mood, and mind.
      Morality is absolute.
      It’s called human ethology.
      Human ethology can be determined in a lab.
      The Republic is absolute, it’s given by the absolute morality.
      Hume, Kant, Aristotle are monsters, deviants, grotesque, Nazi philosophers (for want of a better word, although “Nazi” maybe probably too flattering). They corrupt youth, justify abuse, and thus plutocracy.
      That’s why they are taught.

      Montaigne starts his Essays with critique of Alexander the Great (Montaigne does not insult Alexander explicitly, the insult is implicit, as he heaps praises on others, and offers Alexander as the other end of the spectrum). This was nearly six centuries ago. We can do better.
      When one admires Hume, Kant, Aristotle, for their practical philosophy, one is implicitly admiring Hitler.

      I am proudly banned from American “philosophy” websites for holding this opinion. Fine.


  23. Neat Suggestion For Net Neutrality | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] The right to neutral information is basic to enable democracy. Without it, there is no democracy. The present rule of GAFA, and their present manners, is a complete denial of democracy. Time to fight. When the philosopher Demosthenes called the Greeks to fight the (gold mines propelled) the Macedonian plutocrats, who were quickly increasing in power, he was not listened to. It sounded alarmist to go fight the rich and nasty. When it turned out Demosthenes was finally observed to be right, it was too late. Democracy was destroyed in Greece, for the next 23 centuries. And it all originated from a philosophical debate where Aristotle was prominent. […]


  24. No Philosophy, No Progress, No Civilization | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] He helped demolish what he profited from, Athenian civilization (Aristotle did much worse, he demolished democratic civilization itself, promoting instead a fascist plutocracy led by his most intimate friends). The ascent of […]


  25. War Is A Force Which Gives Us Living | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] hiding behind Christianism: all good books were killed. Secondary thinkers, such as Plato and Aristotle, were preserved and glorified (they loved […]


  26. Why To Climb? Because It’s a Life Which Makes Us Gods | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] claimed that man was a political animal. Whatever. In truth, Aristotle was the animal, an animal, a ravenous beast, whose friends, the worst of the worst, fed out of politics, like pigs out of a through. Aristotle didn’t know that Polis, the City, […]


  27. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Sent to:
    About Aristotle:
    One of the worst thinkers ever, thus carefully preserved by the 2000+ years of fascism and plutocracy he promoted.


  28. ETHICS ARISE FROM NATURE, THROUGH LIFE, And Its SPONSOR, REASON (Rise & Collapse of Rome, Part IV.) | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] non-Euclidean geometry theorems in… Aristotle (the Christian fascists loved Aristotle, because Aristotle destroyed democracy, so they preserved him). Aristotle was not a mathematician, the survival of this mathematical […]


  29. What If The USA Had Used No Nuclear Weapons In 1945? | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] Western philosophers, paid to exhibit moral pretense. The founders of virtue ethics in the West are Plato and Aristotle, those great destroyers of democracy (this is why Aristo-Platonism survived, as their evil teaching served the fascist regimes of the […]


  30. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Aristotle was the child of the evil psycho union between Plato & tyrant Philip of Macedonia (at the top of the court of whom Aristotle grew up). Aristotle was a plutocrat of maximal order, single handledly launching & justifiying 24 centuries of plutocracy


  31. How To Alleviate Fake Media Censorship Through Public Utility Legislation | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] “Qualified users?” I sent a comment. The “Remarq Team” looked at the title of my Aristotle Destroyed Democracy essay (I was electronically informed) and, within minutes, sent me something that got plastered on […]


  32. DON’T BLAME ME, I Am Only Human After All?? (Aurelius’ Perversity, Fall of Rome XI) | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] The greatest names in philosophy originated that infection, that gangrene of the mind: Plato, Aristotle, Marcus […]


  33. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Real quote from Aristotle:”We love the truth, but we love monarchy of our buddies more! And this is why tyrants will love and admire us for 24 centuries!”


  34. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Indeed. Aristotle was an excellent friend of the worst, and excellent at burying democracy, and that was no accident, hence his fame ever since among plutocrats:


  35. Patrice Ayme Says:

    One should know that the tyrant Antipater, destroyer of Greek democracy, was the executor of his dear friend Aristotle’s will. And then one should meditate the notion. Poison works better, if it’s sweet.


  36. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Aristotle said the Macedonian king Philip II of Macedon was good. It was a false problem to believe Philip was bad. Then Aristotle had to flee Athens to save his life.

    Later Aristotle’s friend Antipater became the installer of tyranny in Athens, and ordered the execution of Demosthenes. Demosthenes said: “The easiest thing in the world is self-deceit; for every man believes what he wishes, though the reality is often different.”[Third Olynthiac, section 19 (349 BCE). ]
    Demosthenes: “Whatever shall be to the advantage of all, may that prevail!”
    Speech against Philip II of Macedon (351 BCE)

    Why do we insist upon listening to Aristotle, as he contributed, perhaps more than anybody else, including Antipater, or even Philip, in destroying democracy? Aristotle had the power, the mental power to tell his friends, Philip, Alexander, Antipater, Craterus, how advantageous democracy was.

    Aristotle probably could have persuaded them: Alexander was notoriously ambivalent about what to do with democracy and freedom, and did not want to use force against Athens.
    However, Aristotle was much less in doubt: he called Demosthenes a politician.


  37. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Nice biography, but perhaps lethally poisonous. To present Athens’ crushing hyper-catastrophic defeat at the hands of Sparta and Persia as “humiliating” is to miss the point, the near-annihilation of Athens. And Socrates’ influence on Alcibiades and others had something to do with it.


    • Jason Kerr Says:

      Jason Kerr
      Patrice Ayme: I agree with you but you have to learn both the Yin and Yang of a philosopher’s past in order to learn from their mistakes and not repeat them.


      • Marco Storm Says:

        Jason Kerr: Without fetishising said philosopher.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        I take the hellish trio of Socrates-Plato-Aristotle very seriously, and they made countless valid points, theories, etc. I study and quote them, all the time. Aristotle, though, declared his predecessors “embarrassing, all the more as they are my friends” (he was alluding to the theory of forms).
        Well, I have the same observation about him. By contributing to the Macedonian cause so much, Aristotle contributed to monarchy, the killing of debate, thus intellect… and contributed to sink civilization…


  38. Patrice Ayme Says:

    We live now, 24 centuries later, after huge historical, logical scientific and philosophical developments. Moreover, we can see plainly what too much SPA (Socrates Plato Aristotle) led to…


  39. FRANKS SURPASSED ROME Ice Cores Show (Fall of Rome XII) – Rise, Republic, Plutocracy, Degeneracy, Fall And Transmutation Of Rome Says:

    […] That’s the right attitude to improve civilization, now firmly embraced by China (and, hopefully, life-president Xi will concentrate on that, and let the West handle the rest…). Why Greece collapsed next is a philosophical problem: Aristotle (and Socrates, and Plato, and Isocrates, and especially a gigantic war Athens lost, etc.) …. […]


  40. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Plato, the friend of a tyrant, was fundamentally a lawless fascophile who aspired to kinship. Aristotle was even worse: he educated tyrants, and they were part of his extended family.

    “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”
    — Plato


  41. Patrice Ayme Says:

    On Aristotle and his admirers: Depending upon the wisdom of a fascist kleptocrat who died more than 23 centuries ago is… not wise.


  42. Ian miller Says:

    Aristotle presumably followed Plato, who showed that democracy is the home of plutocrats. Plato picked the problems with democracy quite well, and wanted government by an “enlightened prince”. The problem is there seems to be no way to get them, so Plato’s and Aristotle’s arguments get one nowhere fast. The problems with dictators are they are never enlightened.


  43. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Aristotle’s errors were no errors for him and his friends, the Macedonian tyrants, nor were they errors for the countless generations of strongmen who exploited his thoughts thereafter, to this day…


    • Nathan Curry Says:

      Nathan Curry: Patrice Ayme they were errors for mankind. They impaired evolution for centuries. They created endless unnecessary wars. Correct them now and we avoid worst wars. A student of technological might grasps this. As Lincoln said: we must have faith that right makes might. Not might makes right. I do.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        As I explain in my essay, Aristotle was the guiding light of the most prominent Macedonian tyrants: Antipater, Craterus, Alexander… They are all basically the same family.
        Aristotle obviously detested Demosthenes, the contemporaneous Greek statesman and orator in ancient Athens… who was the leading anti-Macedonian voice and Athenian ambassador. in negotiations with the Macedonians, the equivalent of Putin at the time.
        Aristotle mentions Demosthenes just once. It’s even more ridiculous than, say, if someone had educated Trump and then mentions Biden just once.
        Demosthenes’ orations constitute a significant expression of contemporary Athenian intellectual life, and when Athens got too hot for Aristotles, thanks to Demosthenes, Aristotle had to flee for his life.
        Aristotle was pro-monarchy, an expression of his general evil-power, pluto-cractic position… Hence his popularity with all tyrants thereafter, be they supposedly Christian or Muslim…


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: