Plato and Aristotle

These two men alone, moreover very famous, illustrate the dualism of the Western paradigm. To emphasize their importance and at the same time show their divergent views, the painter Raphael, in his famous painting entitled "the Athenian school," showed them in a posture which reveals the very essence of their philosophy: Plato is pointing his index finger towards the sky while Aristotle’s left hand falls towards the ground.

Both men have 'determined' the way we think, analyze, debate, classify and understand the basic values of life which all Western thinkers use today. Together, they worked out the basic structure of social life, the rules of European dialectic and the roles assigned to things and men.

These two completely different men maintained a student/master relationship for almost 20 years, Aristotle was Plato’s pupil before becoming his strongest opponent. Even European spiritual thought did not escape their influence. The analysis of the "Vulgate" made by the fathers of the Church and the first Latin translation of the "Septante," still remain under the influence of these two masters of Greek philosophy especially when it comes to understanding spirituality.

These two diametrically opposing philosophies symbolizes perfectly the two modes of thinking of European intellectuals. Plato the philosopher, reveals his idealist leaning, through his abstractions, his dialogues and his mystical thoughts. Aristotle the rationalist remains concerned with material things, methodical inventories and systematization. The first untirelessly seeks and questions the reasons for the world and for our existence, while the second seeks to understand how things work, their causes and their effects.. One imagines an ideal city under the influence of "philosopher kings" whose mission would be to guide in the name of good, the human community, the other attempts to generate a social order while justifying social inequalities.

It is clear therefore that Europeans, strongly influenced by these ideas, are either Platonic or Aristotelian in their manner of seeing the world, in their relationship with others and in their manner of understanding their society. Add a "feeling of superiority" to the recipe and you will understand their modus operandi. It is of little consequence which one they support, as it is only their historical experiences and philosophical ideas which fulfill the necessary criteria (read white,) to be bestowed with the seal of "Universalism." It is these dogmatic Eurocentrist ideas which have been severely attacked by Afrocentricity philosophy.

Frustrated Western historians blinded by their "racial" pride, generally prefer to hide the fact that Plato spent 13 years in ancient Egypt(which black Africans ruled for 35 centuries) being taught philosophy by African priests in the temple of Iounou (Héliopolis). Strabon himself acknowledged that he visited Plato’s room in Africa. Aristotle, tutor of the young Alexander the Great (destroyer of civilizations) obviously watered down Egyptian literature especially when he shows that the diversity of what comprises the universe is unity (he is referring here to the Egyptian idea of "Noun") or even when he admits that Egypt is the true cradle of mathematical science and Metaphysics.

Loyal to their societies which were steeped in injustice, inequality and vices of every kind, these two mastodons of European thought are to be handled with tweezers. Indeed, Aristotle was the first to justify with a rare violence, slavery and the idea of man as an “inanimate object "meaning an "inferior being." As for Plato, he justifies not only slavery but also debauchery by yielding to the temptations of the flesh ....male.

These two collosal men deep down thus reveal a completely, unfinished, philosophical content, without any substance, because they were citizens of a society at heart devoid of humanism, prisoners of earthly wealth and easy prey to temptations of all kinds. In their search, they could not detect that true intelligence, which comes from the heart, is that which allows man not to act on his impulses but rather to control them, by using universal and divine wisdom.

Man understands the world with his intellect and not with his heart, which is the seat of divine and human sensitivity. It is because the wise men of Africa during the Pharaonic period understood this that they chided the Greeks for being, as Plato states, childish spirits, incapable of controlling their animal and earthly impulses.

In hindsight, we could add that Platonic Europeans can also be described as pyromaniacs playing sorcerer’s apprentices because it should not be forgotten that they played a major role in European strategy in the conquest and destruction of Africa. They were the first salvo which diverted people’s minds with their pseudo philosophical religious concepts.

European Aristotelians were the second blast which disappeared with all our human and material wealth, leaving the still fresh odor of gunpowder oozing in the air.

For centuries now the game of these two men has been running smoothly.

Sourced from the WWW.

Pascal Sevran the racial bigot

Within 48 heures of his racist comments, the bigot Pascal Sevran 'apologies'. Well to be more precise, the racist has been forced by his employer, France 2(one the leading French tv channels),to apoligise to people his comments have offended.(i.e 'BLACKS PENIS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AFRICA'S FAMINE' 'HAVING A CHILD IN AFRICA IS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY').

His employer and the French establishment might be pleased by this 'face-saving' spin but they can't fool France's black community. Rightly so.
They live in a nation in which it is common for people of high socio-political standing to publicly make racist comments. They instinctively knew, based on past experiences, that Sevran was going to get away with him. So a half-baked 'apology' won't make any difference to them. The press 'criticism' rang hollow. Because no serious action was going to be taken.

Fondamentally, racism derives from our human tendancy to fear whoever doesn't look like us. We de-humanize those with whom we do not share physical characteristics, religious or cultural norms. Preference to one own kind is intrinsic to every nation or community. Whether it's Britain, the Ivory Coast or France.

But although Africa has its fair share of ethnic conflicts, nowhere on that continent would you see a single territory in which racial hatred is institutionalised. Except in countries where the caucasians are the majority(South Africa, some years back). Even with our painful history of slavery and fresh memory of colonisation, we do not harbour such degree of deep-seated, entrenched hatred. Let alone institutionalised. Africans never felt the need to create 'hate political groups or parties' to deal with caucasians who live in our midst.

In every single European country however, there is an organised, legal, institutionalised, partly state-financed extreme, far-right political group. And worst still, centre-right parties have a long and documented tradition of incorporating extreme-right law, policies and thinking into their own agenda. Which further Promotes rejection and hatred for anything non-caucasian. Sevran is a pure product of that environment. And blacks as usual, are one of their favourite targets. Why? I don't know. Try if you can to understand their psyche.


This racist idiot oversteps the boundaries of his role as a simple presenter. Giving a moral lecture to Africans about what we should or shouldn't do. As if his country or himself has any moral ground from which he can dictate to Africa.

Talking about crime against humanity? Colonisation(if we put slavery aside for a minute)is nothing more than the pillage, theft, destruction of a country's resources, identity and soul. Killing its inhabitants in huge number, and still having a military base on their land. This is what crime against humanity is. The funny thing is that when you actually look up the word 'colonisation', in a french dictionary(or the Oxford dictionary) you come up with a definition that omits essential components of what happens when a land is colonised. No matter how you read the definition, you will NEVER EVER get the idea that there has been an invasion, destruction and pillage of someone's territory. If Sevran cares that much about humanity, let him address France american-like imperialist attitude in Africa. Racism run deep into the bones of this idiot. 'Racist' is written on his forehead. No amount of 'apology' or window-dressing will hide that.


In today's France, it's disturbing to see the very people who should know better, specially those like Sevran with 'education', authority and influence stuck in vile, ill-informed, outdated and extremely racist rhetorics. And these are influencial role models, people with high social recognition. People one would classify as 'normal', mainstream. This racist will carry on fronting programms that drive large audiencies. Sick! With these high profile and extremely racist guys in the French media it's understandable why there are few black french citizens in front of the camera in France. Or for that matter, why France lacks household names, high profile proeminant intellectual black figures. Like in Britain.

The French are struggling with their changing ethnic composition. But they do not feel confortable with Britain's multicultural ethnic arragement that 'works'. Whereby different ethnic groups(Blacks, Indians, pakistanis Whites, etc) live side by side within their respective cultural communities and under the same national roof. Guided by effective and inforced equal opportunities laws and policies. The French rather favor the cultural assimilation route. It's the process by which(according to Wikipedia) 'members of an ethno-cultural group are 'absorbed' into an established, generally larger community'. On paper, the French's system is the best. That has always been my view. Britain's system of integration does not encourage a GENUINE cultural interpenetration between its various ethnic groups. Apart from the white british eating curry, some british indians and pakistanis celebrating christamas and the blacks copying anything that can lift them from the bottom of the social pile, there are no real exchanges between the british.
The French propose ONE cultural environment in which everybody comes as one. France is a christian country. If you want to live in France you have to leave your particular cultural identity at the periphery of the national community and conform to its norms. The central message is, practice your cultural identity at home. But as soon as you step into the national arena(school, workplace,policics, etc), you conform to the norms of the land. Everybody as one kind of style. Can Britain syncretism compete with that? No chance.

However France cultural assimilation is good one paper but rubbish in practice. Because it's rigged by profound racism. No matter how you want to put it, France is in fact a multicultural society. Caucasians are the dominant ethnic group. They are the legislators, the judiciary and the executive. They dominate every section of national life. Since the central premisse of this system is that everybody is the same nobody bothers when blacks or arabs are largely under-represented, in the civil service for exemple. There is no sense of proportion or quotas. Guess who this thinking favours? Things have started to change mainly because French citizen from minority ethnic groups are growing in number and in recognition. Even if it's in their kind of 'reserved',favourite and secluded world of sport and music. Things have started to change because this section of the French nation has started to voice their concerns louder and assert more firmly their rights. Ten years back there was not a single black face on French TV let alone in politics. This is cultural assimilation for you. But you have to give credit where it's due. Things are taking off in the right direction. Reluctantly but at least and at last things are moving. French black and arab citizens are 'seriously' being incorporated in French politics.

Coming back to Sevran, he should have been sacked outright for a racist comment of that magnitude. To set an exemple and because it is wrong. Instead he is made to mutter an 'apology' and it's business as usual until the next racist comment.

What kind of message does that send? No wonder why these kind of racist views are rampant in France.

Keep watching this space, the next racial bigot will soon pop up.

Racist stereotypes die hard in France / Les cliches racistes ont la peau dure en France

Pascal Sevran is a well known French Broadcaster. A household name. He is known for the program ‘ La chance aux chansons’. He is the current presenter of ‘Chanter la vie’ on France 2 (a French TV Channel).

He said: ‘Blacks penis is responsible for Africa’s famine’.

He first made these obscene remarks in a book and reiterated them in his last interview by a French weekly newspaper, France soir. Asked about these racist words, on Europe 1(a leading French Radio station), he said he’s answerable to nobody.

He went further saying that ‘having a child in Africa is a crime against humanity’.

One would not begin to grasp how shocking Sevran's comments are until one puts them into perspective. For those of you accustomed to British presenters, it’s more or less the equivalent of Barrymore, Matthew Kelly, Bob Monkhouse or Cilla Black making these sorts of comments. Unthinkable...in Britain.

Well, this raises the obvious question as to why in France figures as well known as Sevran, who hold positions of authority and influence, would easily voice such degrading remarks, publicly?

Don’t look at me for an answer. I've been trying, for years, to figure that out.