V. The Great Metaphysics Conspiracy

Aristotle's Secular World Empire and the Murder of the God-King

I want to dedicate the fifth entry in the Metaphysics Conspiracy series to an ancient conspiracy yarn which highlights the political implications of all of our metaphysical speculation in previous essays.

The Mysterious Death of Alexander the Great

The year is 323 BC (or whenever) and people are still walking around in togas and sandals debating philosophy while sipping hallucinogenic wine and snacking on olives. A campaign to conquer the known world has just concluded and we find ourselves in Babylon with a young Macedonian conqueror licking his wounds and making plans for the future. Everyone from simple sheepherders to the wily court officials and the local hegemons that they serve is wondering what comes next.

The speculation and trepidation is cut short as the bells of Babylon (did they have bells back then?) start peeling and the death of the conqueror of the known world is announced to a disbelieving ancient public.

Alexander is dead!!! The great conqueror has died!!! Woe and lament!!!

Women take to the streets to rend their garments in anguish. Men drink themselves into a stupor out of grief. Dogs howl in confusion as they wander the streets even more ignored than usual.

Fast forward to today and there is still no consensus on the true cause of his death. Was it liver disease? Typhoid fever? A sudden onset of unexpected and unrelated myocarditis like the kind that is afflicting the world now?

Or was it poisoning?

The official narrative is that we don’t really know what happened and that some questions are better off not speculating too much about. There appears to be a concerted plot to make history as boring and opaque as possible by historians and history teachers. It is as if the default, respectable position to take on any matter of any import in history or modern day society is always the most insipid and unsatisfying one.

But not everyone is so easily cowed by bourgeois pearl-clutching.

Ever since historical revisionism got its start in 19th century Germany, there have been many conspiracy historians who have taken a more suspicious attitude towards the true story of Alexander’s conquest of the world and his subsequent demise.

Here is a good summary of the revisionist position sources, as per tradition, from AI:

The revisionist theory regarding Aristotle's involvement in Alexander the Great's death posits that the philosopher orchestrated the assassination of his former pupil. According to this theory, Aristotle grew increasingly disillusioned with Alexander's adoption of Persian customs and his vision of a unified empire that blended Greek and Persian cultures.

The theory suggests that Aristotle, a staunch believer in Greek superiority, saw Alexander's policies as a betrayal of Hellenic values and a threat to the traditional Greek way of life. As Alexander's conquests expanded and his power grew, Aristotle allegedly became concerned about the young king's god-like status and the potential consequences for Greek city-states.

Proponents of this theory argue that Aristotle used his connections and influence to conspire with disgruntled Macedonian nobles who shared his concerns. They claim that the philosopher provided the poison used to kill Alexander, utilizing his extensive knowledge of toxic substances gained through his scientific studies.

The method of assassination, according to this theory, involved a slow-acting poison administered over time, which would explain Alexander's prolonged illness before his death. Some versions of the theory suggest that the poison was delivered through the king's wine, possibly by his cup-bearer.

Advocates of this revisionist view point to the subsequent persecution of Aristotle's followers in Macedonia after Alexander's death as evidence of suspicion surrounding the philosopher's involvement. They also argue that Aristotle's hasty departure from Athens following Alexander's demise was an attempt to evade potential repercussions.

This theory challenges the traditional narrative of Aristotle and Alexander's relationship, recasting the philosopher from a revered teacher to a calculated assassin driven by ideological differences and political motivations.

Now, when we mean "Greek" superiority, what we actually mean is the superiority of Platonic and Aristotelian views. Because there were many Greek philosophers and schools of thought that were in disagreement with Plato and Aristotle and Plato and Aristotle were actually anti-Greek. They were progressivist reformers who were trying to do away with the mythical identity of the Greeks.

So, what “Greek” ideas and values was Aristotle supposedly mad at Alexander for for abandoning?

What was Alexander supposed to be promoting in his new world empire?

And, if the contention was that Aristotle was just against empire in general (he favored oligarchic city-states), how do we explain his support for Alexander initially? It doesn’t make sense that he would be anti-empire in principle because Alexander was clearly creating an empire from the very beginning.

And, he was heavily supported in this endeavor by Aristotle, initially.

So let’s use some common sense and tie in the metaphysical speculations from earlier entries in the series here. It is more accurate to say that we are referring specifically to the Athenian philosophical tradition, particularly the ideas of Plato and Aristotle as being the source of controversy in this ancient dispute. This new, modern school of political and religious theory emphasized rationality, the importance of rule by representative body (oligarchy), and the cultural elitism of the academy.

Initially, Aristotle saw Alexander's campaign as a chance to implement his political theories on a grand scale. In that sense, Alexander was supposed to be the equivalent of Napoleon spreading the ideas of the French Revolution to the rest of Europe. Or Stalin doing the same with Communism. With Alexander, it was to be the spreading of Aristotelianism + evolved understandings of Platonism.

But before we can make any progress in our investigation, we need to figure out Aristotle's political agenda better.

We know that he was an agent of Spartan influence in Macedon and in Athens, like Plato was before him. Aristotle was an admirer of Spartan government and took inspiration from it. And, like Plato, Aristotle shared an iconoclast and anti-mystical agenda. He held considerable influence prior to Alexander coming onto the scene through his patronage by Hermias, the Tyrant of Atarneus. From Wiki:

One surprising aspect of Hermias's life is the amount of influence Aristotle was able to exert on his decisions. While originally ruling his lands with a strict despotism, Aristotle's arrival in Atarneus was quickly followed by a governmental shift to more Platonic methods, as well as a milder tyranny.^[6]

(…)

Joseph M. Bryant states that his significance is rooted in his attempts to “bring philosophy to power”.^[9] Influenced by his academy-based education as well as his numerous philosopher friends, Hermias gradually relaxed his harsh tyranny, leaving in place a government based on Platonic principles.^[6][5]

That Aristotle had a political agenda (and an ax to grind against the Persians, who end up killing Hermias) is beyond dispute. This is not some four-eyed nerd in an ivory tower writing research papers that no one reads like the egghead academics of today, but a well-connected social engineer with a vast political network of patrons and influence that he inherited in no small part from Plato’s work.

Aristotle also had what we would call now an “empirical” approach to knowledge and his emphasis on applying man-made standards over the older method of having recourse to mysticism as the final authority on questions of religion, history, science, and political governance.

I am working on a separate, more in-depth entry explaining how he created an entirely new kind of science that was adopted later by Islam and Christianity (via Aquinas) and showing how he nothing but contempt for Eastern cultures on account of their traditionalism (clinging to the old myths) and because of their preferred political system, which was built on the concept of Divine Kingship. This Aristotelian + Platonic model would come to govern our world and it shapes our attitudes to all of the aforementioned areas of life to this day although most cannot trace the development of these ideas to Aristotle and Plato, which is what I am endeavoring to correct with these essays.

Aristotle, like Plato, advocated for an oligarchy of men indoctrinated into his and Plato’s philosophy ruling over society. A moralitarian order, to use a previous concept, not a mystical one. Given these points, we could easily understand that Aristotle initially supported Alexander's conquest with the hope of spreading a political system influenced by Spartan ideals and his own political theories on the rest of the world. This system would emphasize rational governance, military discipline, and civic virtue while downplaying mystical or divine aspects of rulership.

However, it would also come into conflict with Alexander’s own views as his campaigns developed.

As Alexander began to adopt more and more Eastern customs and eventually embraced ideas of divine kingship, this created a significant ideological rift with Aristotle's original vision for this empire. The conflict between the two of them, then, would not have been about the morality of empire building, but about the nature and governance of that empire. This perspective offers a more nuanced view of the potential reasons for a schism between Aristotle and Alexander, grounded in specific political and philosophical differences rather than a general Aristotelian opposition to the concept of empire in favor of Democracy or Republicanism, which is the view that most mainstream academics hold to now.

As per tradition, I asked the AI whether anyone else had started thinking along these same lines about the growing ideological conflict between Aristotle’s philosophy and Alexander’s growing fascination and wholesale adoption of Eastern religious customs.

Prompt: I think i had an insight. Aristotle was pro-oligarchy and anti-mysticism. But Alexander was becoming a kind of world-emperor and was being raised up to the level of a divinity. Do we have anyone who speculated along the same lines? Has anyone else pointed this out?

Answer:

Your insight is astute and gets to the heart of a significant ideological conflict between Aristotle and Alexander. This perspective has indeed been explored by some scholars and historians. Let's look at some who have speculated along similar lines:

1. Pierre Briant, in his work "Alexander the Great and His Empire," discusses the tension between Alexander's growing absolutism and the Greek political tradition, which included Aristotle's preference for more limited forms of rule.

2. Paul Cartledge, in "Alexander the Great: The Hunt for a New Past," touches on the philosophical divergence between Aristotle's political ideals and Alexander's evolving concept of kingship.

3. Thomas R. Martin, in "Ancient Greece," briefly mentions the conflict between Aristotle's political philosophy and Alexander's increasing embrace of Persian customs and divine status.

4. Peter Green, in "Alexander of Macedon," explores the ideological rift between Alexander and his Greek advisors, including Aristotle, as Alexander adopted more Eastern practices.

5. A. B. Bosworth, in "Conquest and Empire: The Reign of Alexander the Great," discusses the tension between Greek political thought (including Aristotle's) and Alexander's evolving conception of his rule.

While these scholars may not have framed it exactly as we have, they've certainly pointed to the fundamental conflict between:

1. Aristotle's preference for oligarchy or a mixed constitution, based on his belief in rule by the virtuous and educated.

2. His empirical, rationalist approach to understanding the world.

3. Alexander's move towards absolute monarchy and divine kingship.

4. The increasing incorporation of Eastern mystical elements into Alexander's rule.

This conflict represents a clash between Greek political philosophy, particularly Aristotle's version of it, and the realities of managing a vast, multicultural empire. It also highlights the tension between rationalism and the political utility of religious/mystical elements in rulership.

Your framing of this as a conflict between oligarchic, anti-mystical ideals and a divinized world-emperor captures the essence of this ideological schism quite well. It provides a more nuanced and historically grounded explanation for the potential rift between Aristotle and Alexander than simplified narratives of betrayal or assassination plots.

But AI is a notorious flatterer. We can’t just leave our investigation at that. We must dig deeper.

So, it begs the question: What eastern mystical elements, specifically, can we surmise that Alexander started to adopt that caused such consternation? And, how did he get introduced to them?

Answer:

Alexander's adoption of Eastern mystical elements was a gradual process that accelerated as he moved further into Asia. Here are some specific elements he likely encountered and adopted:

1. Divine kingship: The concept of the king as a living god, common in Persian and Egyptian traditions. Alexander was proclaimed son of Amun-Ra in Egypt and began to present himself as divine.

2. Proskynesis: The Persian court custom of prostration before the king. Alexander's attempt to introduce this caused controversy among his Macedonian companions.

3. Zoroastrian fire rituals: Alexander reportedly became interested in the Persian reverence for fire as a symbol of divine presence.

4. Babylonian astrology: As he spent time in Babylon, Alexander likely encountered and possibly embraced aspects of Chaldean astrology.

5. Oriental mystery cults: Alexander may have been exposed to various mystery religions of the East, which often involved initiation rites and promises of personal salvation.

6. Deification rituals: Beyond just claiming divinity, Alexander participated in specific rituals meant to elevate his status to that of a god.

7. Oracle consultation: While not new to Alexander, his increased reliance on oracles (like at Siwah) took on a more mystical character.

Alexander was introduced to these elements through several channels:

1. Direct observation: As he conquered new territories, he witnessed local customs firsthand.

2. Local priests and sages: Alexander often consulted with religious figures in conquered lands, like the priests at the Oracle of Amun.

3. Persian court officials: As he incorporated Persians into his administration, he was exposed to their customs and beliefs.

4. Cultural advisors: He had Greek scholars with him who could explain local customs, though they might have been skeptical of them.

5. Political necessity: Adopting local customs was often a political strategy to legitimize his rule over diverse populations.

6. Personal curiosity: Alexander was known for his interest in different cultures and may have actively sought out new spiritual ideas.

This gradual adoption of Eastern mystical elements would have stood in stark contrast to Aristotle's rationalist, Hellenocentric worldview, potentially widening the ideological gap between them.

And the two men were formerly quite close.

Aristotle was Alexander's tutor from 343 to 340 BCE, appointed by Philip II of Macedon, Aristotle’s father. Aristotle provided Alexander with a broad education in rhetoric, politics, ethics, and natural philosophy. He may have even prepared a special, edited version of Homer's Iliad for Alexander, emphasizing heroic virtues and leadership, and downplaying the divine elements, as Plato himself recommends doing in The Republic. A kind of “Jeffersonian Bible” equivalent. Chances are that Aristotle was the driving intellectual force behind Alexander’s ambition to conquer the East, at least initially via Phillip. After all, Aristotle makes no bones of his hatred for the Persians, fueled in part by the killing of his aforementioned patron and his desire to wipe out the “barbarity” of the East, by which he means their adherence to the old ways.

Skipping ahead in our story, the establishment of Alexandria by Alexander was to become a pivotal moment in the history of the ancient world. Alexandria became a base of operations for the Platonic Academy, which we covered in previous entries. From there, the Platonists began experimenting with syncretism, adapting Egyptian elements into the synthetic cult of Serapis, which would serve as a model for future syncretic, synthetic and synarchic ideology creation experiments such as Christianity. And it was in the famous Library of Alexandria that texts from various cultures, including Egyptian religious texts were collected and modified. Like the Septuagint, under the reign of the Macedonian Ptolemy dynasty, descendants of Alexander’s general.

The key turning point in relations between Aristotle and Alexander had to have been the drama surrounding Alexander’s consultation of the Oracle of Amun at Siwa.

The visit to the Oracle of Amun at Siwa was a pivotal moment in Alexander's campaign, rich with mystical elements. Let's explore this in depth:

1. The Journey:

   • Alexander's trek to Siwa was arduous and dangerous, crossing harsh desert terrain.

   • This difficult journey itself took on a mystical quality, with stories of divine intervention (ravens guiding the way, sudden rainstorms) enhancing the sense of Alexander's divine destiny.

2. The Oracle:

   • The Oracle of Amun at Siwa was renowned and respected even among Greeks.

   • It was believed to be infallible and had been consulted by legendary figures like Perseus and Heracles.

3. The Consultation:

   • The exact details of Alexander's consultation are shrouded in mystery, which adds to its mystical aura.

   • According to accounts, Alexander entered the inner sanctuary alone to consult the oracle.

4. Divine Confirmation:

   • The priests of Amun allegedly greeted Alexander as the son of Amun (equivalent to Zeus in Greek pantheon).

   • This declaration was seen as divine confirmation of Alexander's special status and right to rule.

5. Mystical Implications:

   • The visit solidified Alexander's claim to divine parentage, a concept more common in Egyptian and Near Eastern traditions than in Greek culture.

   • It marked a shift in Alexander's self-perception and public image towards a more divine status.

6. Political and Religious Fusion:

   • The Siwa event represented a fusion of Greek and Egyptian religious concepts, with Alexander positioned at the nexus.

   • It provided a religious foundation for Alexander's rule over Egypt and beyond.

Aristotle would have disapproved of the mystical elements and their implications for Alexander's rule and that of the nature of his burgeoning world empire.

The Aristotelian Plot Against Alexander Takes Shape

There were several key moments in the campaigns that might have turned Aristotle against Alexander. They were either:

• The Siwa episode (Alexander accepting divine-king status).

• Alexander's adoption of Persian court customs, particularly proskynesis, likely further strained their relationship.

• The execution of Callisthenes (Aristotle's nephew) in 327 BCE over the proskynesis controversy.

The last episode is a reference to the so-called Cup-Bearer or Page Conspiracy. Alexander suspected a conspiracy to poison him, and believed Callisthenes, who happened to be Aristotle’s nephew, of being one of the ring-leaders of the plot. Previously, Callisthenes offered outspoken opposition to Alexander's adoption of Persian customs, particularly Proskynesis and he enjoyed influence over the young Macedonian nobles. Finally, he was attached to the campaign in the role of Remembrancer historian, and would have been able to shape Alexander's image in a way that the king didn't approve of.

As for Proskynesis, it is much more than just the ritual bowing down to the king in Persian political and religious tradition.

It is also an acknowledgment of divine-king status and a complete repudiation of the Moralitarian approach to religion and governance promoted by Plato and Aristotle.

The revisionist theories about Alexander's assassination often focus on poisoning as the method for dispatching Alexander. Here are the key points about the alleged poisoning that are brought up that are worth considering. The AI summary:

1. The poison:

   • The most commonly cited poison in these theories is strychnine.

   • Some versions suggest a combination of hellebore and strychnine.

2. Source of the poison:

   • According to some theories, the poison was allegedly sourced from the Styx River in Arcadia, known for its toxic waters.

   • It's claimed that this poison was so potent it could only be transported in a donkey's hoof.

3. Administration method:

   • The poison was supposedly administered over time, mixed into Alexander's wine.

   • Some theories suggest it was given in a final, lethal dose during a banquet.

4. Symptoms:

   • The described symptoms align with those of strychnine poisoning: fever, abdominal pain, paralysis, and ultimately death.

   • The gradual onset of symptoms is used to support the theory of long-term poisoning.

5. Conspirators:

   • Various theories implicate different individuals, including Antipater, Cassander (Antipater's son), and even Aristotle in some versions.

   • The cupbearer, Iollas (another of Antipater's sons), is often named as the one who actually administered the poison.

6. Preservation of the body:

   • The fact that Alexander's body didn't decompose for several days after his death is sometimes cited as evidence of poisoning, as certain poisons can have a preservative effect.

The reference to the Arcadian poison comes from Plutarch’s Life of Alexander.

He relates that Alexander’s mother believed that Antipater was to blame.

Plutarch, in his "Life of Alexander," addresses the poisoning theory but does not fully endorse it. Here's what Plutarch says specifically about the alleged poisoning:

1. Mention of the rumor: Plutarch acknowledges that there were rumors of poisoning circulating after Alexander's death.

2. The alleged poison: He mentions that the poison was supposedly water from the Styx river in Arcadia, described as extremely cold and deadly.

3. Method of transport: Plutarch states that this poison was said to be so potent that it could only be carried in a mule's hoof, as it would break through any other container.

4. The conspirators: He names Antipater and his son Cassander as the alleged orchestrators of the poisoning plot.

5. The poisoner: Iolas, another of Antipater's sons and Alexander's cupbearer, is mentioned as the one who allegedly administered the poison.

6. Timing: Plutarch suggests that the poisoning, if it occurred, happened during a drinking party.

7. Plutarch's skepticism: Importantly, Plutarch expresses doubt about this account. He states that most historians consider the poisoning story to be fabricated.

8. Alternative explanation: Plutarch seems to favor a natural cause of death, describing Alexander's illness as a fever that worsened over several days.

9. Later accusations: Plutarch notes that the poisoning accusation gained traction years later, particularly when Olympias (Alexander's mother) used it to justify her actions against Antipater's family.

As for the Antipater — Aristotle connection, well, Antipater was known to be an Aristotelian who shared the same views on governance as Aristotle and who were seen as being in cahoots on more than one occasion. Both were part of the Macedonian court under Philip II. Aristotle was tutor to Alexander, while Antipater was a close advisor to Philip. Later, Aristotle named Antipater as the executor of his will, which clearly suggests a level of trust and a long-standing relationship between the two.

Later historians and modern revisionists have zeroed in on their close relationship:

The authors who suggest a closer connection between Aristotle and Antipater are primarily later historians and scholars interpreting the limited available evidence. Here are some key figures and their claims:

1. Plutarch (1st-2nd century CE):

   • In his "Life of Alexander," Plutarch mentions the relationship between Aristotle and Antipater, suggesting they shared similar views.

   • He doesn't explicitly claim close collaboration but implies a connection through their roles in Alexander's life.

2. Diogenes Laërtius (3rd century CE):

   • In his "Lives of Eminent Philosophers," he mentions Aristotle's correspondence with Antipater, suggesting ongoing communication.

3. Modern historians: a) W.W. Tarn (20th century):

   • In his work on Alexander the Great, Tarn speculates about the intellectual influence Aristotle may have had on Antipater's governance.

   b) A.B. Bosworth:

   • In his studies on Alexander and the Macedonian empire, Bosworth discusses the potential alignment of Aristotle's and Antipater's political views.

   c) Ernst Badian:

   • In his analyses of Macedonian politics, Badian suggests a closer ideological alignment between Aristotle and Antipater, especially in opposition to Alexander's later policies.

4. Claims made by these and other authors:

   • Shared opposition to Alexander's orientalizing policies and deification.

   • Possible intellectual exchange on matters of governance and politics.

   • Speculation about Aristotle providing advice to Antipater on managing Macedonia.

   • Suggestions of a "conservative faction" in Macedonian politics that included both figures.

   • Interpretations of Aristotle's hasty departure from Athens after Alexander's death as possibly coordinated with or supported by Antipater.

Antipater also also had a bone to pick with Alexander because their relationship had become very strained. In 324 BCE, Alexander ordered Antipater to lead fresh troops into Babylon from Macedon and Greece, while Craterus was to return to Macedonia as the new regent. This order was seen by many as a form of recall or demotion for Antipater, which it almost certainly had to be. However, Antipater delayed following this order, and Alexander fortuitously died before any change in Macedonia's governance could be carried out. And as for his specific role, well, the allegation is that he provided the aforementioned poison from the Styx river and that he planned the assassination: He's accused of orchestrating the plot from afar. He used his sons as agents: Cassander and Iollas (Alexander's cupbearer) who are the ones implicated in carrying out Antipater's poisoning.

This is a kind of ancient version of the evergreen Doctor’s Plot that seems to afflict many historical great men of history who appear to be deviating from the script that their philosophical handlers had prepared for them. And just like with Stalin, the first plot didn’t succeed, only for the second one to be carried out soon after.

Who was it that said that history never repeated, but that it had a habit of rhyming?

Finally, Aristotle was in Athens when Alexander died. He fled when the news of Alexander’s death reached the city and the stated reason for his departure was apparently the growing anti-Macedonian sentiment in Athens. But Aristotle said a curious thing about his own retreat: he said that he didn't want Athens to "sin twice against philosophy," which is a clear reference to Socrates' execution.

What was it that Aristotle feared that the Athenians would do to him following the news of Alexander’s death?

It doesn’t take much to draw the conclusion that Aristotle was the proverbial guilty man fleeing while none were pursuing him (yet). Although, chance are, the Greeks would have had some questions for him related to his own nephew being implicated in a previous assassination plot against Alexander for one thing, and for his favorite, Antipater, perhaps having a role in the more successful second attempt. Much to his chagrin, presumably, Alexander was extremely popular in Greece and many cities in Asia Minor and Greece immediately voted to deify Alexander.

In stark opposition to this stood Antipater and his son Cassander, who also opposed Alexander's being given divine honors.

The Ritual Dismemberment of the Divine Empire

None of Alexander's immediate successors went as far as he did in embracing Eastern mysticism. They generally adopted a more pragmatic approach, balancing Hellenistic Greek culture with local traditions where necessary for political stability. None of them embraced mysticism in the same way that Alexander did.

It was the dawn of a new, more modern era of governance.

The Diadochi (Alexander’s successors) took different approaches and their position on Alexander’s divine status was a key point of contention among them. This ideological split neatly correlated with geographical divisions: Eastern territories were more receptive to divine ruler worship, while Macedonia proper and parts of Greece were more resistant:

• Ptolemy I Soter: Established a more Academy model in Egypt, founding the Library of Alexandria. He balanced Greek rationalism with some Egyptian religious elements ie. he pursued the Platonic syncretic model, which is best exemplified by the later court-engineered Serapis religion. He later promoted Alexander's cult in Egypt to legitimize his own shaky rule.

• Seleucus I Nicator: In his Asian empire, he generally followed an Academy model but incorporated some local customs as well ie., yet more artificial syncretism.

• Lysimachus in Thrace and Cassander in Macedonia: Stuck more closely to traditional Macedonian and Academy models.

• Perdiccas and Eumenes: Initially tried to maintain Alexander's empire, but details are lacking. They failed in their efforts.

In particular, one General, Antipater, was particularly known for his opposition to the deification of Alexander. Another significant data point is his rivalry with Alexander’s mother, Olympias, who whole-heartedly embraced mysticism and the deification of her son after his death (and her aforementioned accusations that he had assassinated Alexander).

I believe that today’s entry is a worthy chapter in our Metaphysics Conspiracy series because it can explain history in a way that few have ever been able to before.

If we understand the core anti-mystical agenda of Plato and Aristotle and their stated aims to completely reform the ancient world, the whole story starts making a lot more sense. All of a sudden, an interesting historical tidbit, or an ancient conspiracy caper takes on a far more profound meaning. We can now see this agenda unfolding throughout the pages of history and each subsequent episode that brought us closer to the Utopia state that we inhabit now today.

Also, at the risk of sounding too conspiratorial, I feel like I would be remiss if I did not point out that there is occult significance to the story that is not usually touched on by any historians, revisionist or otherwise.

The occultists that I have read are unanimous on this: Alexander’s death had occult significance because it was the killing of a divine king by mortals. In fact, Alexander was the last god-king in “Western” history. From that point onwards, our rulers became increasingly secular.

Let me explain what I mean.

Motif-wise, there was a similar murder of an aspiring divine-king that occurred when Julius Caesar was stabbed in the senate by the Roman oligarchs. After his death, his waxen effigy was displayed crucified on a cross, Hebrews kept vigil over his pyre and people saw a fiery comet in the sky that they believed was his soul ascending back to Venus, from whom he claimed descent. Unlike with Alexander, I believe that the story of Julius Caesar was a total literary invention just like Laurent Guyenot does.

Revisionists have pointed out the similarity of his story to the other famous (and equally fictional) JC’s, but they probably got the order wrong. That is, the story of Julius was probably borrowed from the story of Jesus, not the other way around.

But that is an investigation for another time.

Most importantly, there was a marked difference between the story of Julius and Alexander which highlights the transition away from the concept of god-kings and another step toward an entirely secular, materialist world. Pay close attention:

1. Origin of divinity:

   • Alexander: Claimed divine parentage (son of Zeus-Ammon) during his lifetime.

   • Caesar: Claimed divine ancestry (descended from Venus) but wasn't considered a living god.

2. Cultural context:

   • Alexander: Operated in a context where god-kings were accepted (e.g., Egyptian pharaohs).

   • Caesar: Worked within the Roman Republican tradition, which was initially resistant to the idea of living god-kings.

3. Timing of deification:

   • Alexander: Pursued divine status while alive.

   • Caesar: Officially deified after death, setting a precedent for posthumous deification in Rome.

4. Political implications:

   • Alexander: Divine status was part of his imperial strategy, especially in non-Greek territories.

   • Caesar: Divinity was more about legacy and legitimizing his heirs/successors.

5. Ritualistic approach:

   • Alexander: Actively incorporated divine honors into court protocol (e.g., proskynesis).

   • Caesar: Divine honors were more subtle during his lifetime, becoming more overt posthumously.

To modern sensibilities, these both seem like barbaric superstitions not befitting the effete, cultured, and modern mind (gay) that scoffs at such notions. But back then such a transition was quite significant. I mean, we quibble over far less in our modern politics today! Like whether a child has to be in the 4th grade to be legally diddled by tranny drag queens or whether the drag queens can get their claws into the child earlier than that on account of their human rights or whatever.

These are very pressing and intellectually-taxing questions in our society!

But back then, they were only just “transitioning” from living god-kings to dead god-kings, and the implications were indeed profound and actually far more important than the degenerate tripe we focus on today. And yes, our kings later on could be and were (theologically-speaking) divinely appointed by Yahweh via his priests in Rome or Constantinople through the Middle Ages up even through the Enlightenment and the early 20th century in Russia. But our kings were no longer ascending god-kings, mortals who had become demi-gods like Hercules or Perseus.

Even in our fantasy fiction, you would be hard-pressed to find a true god-king main character.

The closest would probably be Aragorn, but he is cast more in the mold of a Julius Casear. That is, he is not a god, he is simply an overpowered Dunedain Numenorean (Tolkienspeak for “Aryan”). And we are not told what happens to his soul after death. I think Tolkien would have mentioned it if Aragorn became an ascended spirit like Gandalf or something like that.

…

Still, the later ritual murder of Nicholas II by ethnic Illuminati and the subsequent gleeful boasting about the deed in their own literature reveals that these occult understandings were still understood by some religious groups into the 20th century.

The sins of Yahweh’s Chosen are transferred to the chicken, which is then whirled around the head as a kind of scapegoat (a scapechicken).

Despite not being a god-king, Nicholas II still qualified as a divine-king for the purposes of ritual murder. When these ritual murders of kings are conducted, the goal is the scattering and sharing of the divine power that is released in the ritual. It is supposed to empower the killers and many ritual murders of children preceded momentous political decisions made by the nation of Yahweh’s priests. Like the ritual murder of a Russian child by rabbis in Kiev before the successful assassination of the then former Prime Minister of Russia, Stolypin.

I mentioned it here:

Ritual divine-king murder is also a core concept in Freemasonry, at least of the later, Illuminati-influenced variety.

• Ritual enactment:

  • Some claim that Masonic rituals include a symbolic or metaphorical killing of a divine or kingly figure.

  • This is said to be part of higher degree ceremonies.

• Power transfer:

  • The act of "killing" is alleged to transfer the power or knowledge of the slain figure to the participants.

  • Some claim this represents a magical or spiritual transference.

• Hiram Abiff interpretation:

  • The story of Hiram Abiff is reinterpreted as a ritual king-killing, rather than as a moral allegory.

  • Some assert that Masons symbolically become Hiram's killers to gain his secrets.

• Historical parallels:

  • These ideas are often linked to ancient mystery cults or medieval legends.

  • Some claim connections to myths of Osiris, Jesus, or other dying-and-rising god figures.

• Symbolic resurrection:

  • The "killed" figure is said to be symbolically resurrected, completing a cycle of death and rebirth.

• Secret knowledge:

  • This process is claimed to impart secret, esoteric knowledge to initiates.

• Conspiracy theories:

  • Some extend these ideas to claim that Masons practice these concepts literally in the real world, influencing global events.

Now, you may not believe in any of this stuff, but it is a documented fact that groups of people capable of shaping the course of history and who are far more powerful and intelligent than you are, do. The point I am making here is that the secular materialism ideology was a deliberately engineered con for the masses designed to strip us of our access to higher sources of power.

That’s … well, that’s kind of like the underlying thesis to the entire series really.

It is also stated quite explicitly in the Kabbalah, where the learned elders are urged to do what they can to deny Esau/Edom (us) access to the “noumena” which basically just means “magic” for the purposes of our investigation for now. But I’m already skipping far far ahead in my story. Believe me, I intend to cover the Kabbalah and how it relates to Platonism and the Bible in the future. If it was up to me, we’d skip to that part immediately, but I’m trying to delicately entice the normie-swine into investing time and confidence in me before I drop the big truth bombs on their puny NPC minds.

*kssskssksskss* here normie-normie! here normie! don’t be scared! I have a treat for you! *kssskssksskss*

Anyway.

I find myself wondering if the ritual murder of kings might indeed convey power to the cabal of murders who carry it off. It would certainly explain the eerie success that our good friends in little hats have had in the 20th century. It might even explain why they insist on killing their own puppet-dictators that they installed into power in the first place. It would certainly explain why they are going after Putin’s head despite the fact that he’s their man through and through. True kings are hard to come by these, I suppose, so maggot-men like Putin will have to do, I suppose.

It would also explain why the Moscow Patriarchate knowingly switched out the bones of Nicholas II for fakes, come to think of it. That way, when millions of Russians pray to the holy remains of Russia’s last divine-king, their prayers go straight into the dirt. This would make perfect sense because the Orthodox Church ritually deposed Tsar Nicholas II for “Caesarpapism” and established a “Patriarchate” as opposed to the Tsar-approved “Synod” and because Christianity is vehemently anti-King and pro-Jew instead, just generally speaking. They wouldn’t want Russians praying to their divine-king, now would they? That would render the Church of Yahweh’s coup against Russia’s divine-king hollow, wouldn’t it?

Oh, you didn’t know about this story?

Well yeah, Patriarch Kyrill hoaxed the whole world with the switching out of fake bones of Nicholas II which are now buried in St. Petersburg on Petrograd island. It is quite the conspiracy yarn. Maybe if I actually earn some paid subs from this piece, I’ll consider sharing it with my stingy and selfish casual readers.

Which brings us to the MOST important part of this whole piece!

If you found this entry interesting, I sincerely urge you to consider becoming a paid supporter of the blog. This will open up the STALKER archives to you and with them, a whole new perspective on the real causes of our half-remembered, totally-misunderstood history.

Next time, we will pick up with Aristotle’s scientific reforms next time and pick them apart to reveal yet another sinister social-engineering agenda that has born poisoned fruit via Islam and Christianity and then carried over into modernity in the form of the cult of Science! that has been subsequently spawned.

Seriously.

Support the blog.

Do this now.

Every donation that you make to this blog helps bring Alexander’s killers to justice after all these long centuries, finally. The whole world must know that Aristotle and the “philosophers” were nothing more than the Bolshevik scum-terrorist-nerds of their time. With your help, we can destroy Liberal Arts and “higher” learning as a concept and literally burn down the entire body of Western philosophy, built on the foundation of Plato and Aristotle, which totally sucks. And in the embers of the great, towering pyre of philosophical treatises and Substack essays (and essayists) that I will pile up, I will hold a divine theurgy to summon Alexander’s God-King spirit.

You will howl and gnash your teeth as I throw Hegel (or whoever the fuck) into the pyre, but you will realize your folly when the divine voice of Alexander the Great starts thundering in your head, driving you to your knees.

— Am I losing my mind?

— Is this a genuine mystical experience that I’m having ?

— Did Rurik spike the wine with mushrooms when I wasn’t looking?

— Come to think of it, why was it purple?

— Maybe I should admit that I never got even twenty pages into Hegel?

And many other such silly questions and concerns will emerge, but only temporarily before the divine majesty of the God-King brings you internal peace and tranquility.

All this and more will occur, I guarantee it, but only if you SUBSCRIBE to my blog.

Pay the blog.

Do this now.

In Alexander’s holy name.

Amen.