Was Democritus A Fraud?

 

    Over the years I've come up with some crazy, and I mean crazy in the literal sense of the word, ideas about the world and now I've come to dissect the world of ancient philosophy. In this sense, going far beyond the ideas of The LaRouche movement before Socrates and have come to the conclusion that the real split in philosophy started with the Atomists (led by Democritus) and the ideas of Heraclitus. Since it very well might be that Democritus, may have never existed but was written into the history of philosophy by those who would become the ultimate bearers of the modern world, since we all know that "history is written by the victors".

    So was Democritus merely an invention by a shadow enterprise that pre-dates notions of secret societies? Since we have realized that, however much I dislike John Stuart Mill, linear history may have played a part in the creation of the Atomist myth, since all evil forms of historicism and historiography are written in a linear direction, justice is only served by cycles and as soon as we turn this ship around, we will indeed see justice in the modern world, beyond our lifetimes. Since Atomism is based on the sole fundamental property that everything can be reduced to a particle, the most basic particle in the structure of governmental affairs is the individual, which was furthered along by the concepts of Hobbes and Locke. Since atomists don't believe something exists beyond the fundamental particle, we can deduce that, at least by Hobbesian standards that everything begins with individual rights, in a contractual agreement with the greater governing body at writ large. 

    So why did Heraclitus lose? well since progress hasn't stopped yet since the setbacks of the great depression and WW2, we can attribute that "linear" historicism is evil based on its sights set towards human annihilation, the neverending train of progress which will eventually render humans obselete, nevermind the fact a lot of transhumanist thinking believes we should follow Nietzsche's lead into not only becoming the overman, but transcending humanity itself. But that's neither here nor there. We have limited time on earth and must sow our wild oats and make something of this world, not try and escape it. 

    Firstly, we examine the social contract of Hobbes, which is where the origin of consent lies. This law of consent has now expanded into the socio-cultural sphere. people have to consent, in order to procreate their race. With the rise of #metoo and other cultural markers, women have effectively adopted this modernist concept which used to extend to the law to themselves. Men should not fear their leaders insoasmuch as they shouldn't fear the retribution of women. Women have turned their bodies into extensions of the state and use it to put men into fear. But enough about that.

    The secret consul of philosophy liked wrote in the Atomists by decree that Heraclitus could not sit unopposed, that it plays into the dualist notion that everything is a ceremony opposites. the Atomist line continued with Hobbes and Locke after being dormant for most of early history, that everything is reduced into "individual feelings", promoted by Hume, which led to Smith and the dominance of individual capitalism at the expense of the community, promoted further by existentialists (Sartre and Ponty, despite their Marxist political stances, which we will touch on in a moments notice, and why its contradictory) and the individualist leanings of Tucker, Stirner, Rothbard and Von Mises. 

since women are the ones primarily at the helm of "cancel culture" the state has been reduced to the bodies of individual females, who not only are the world's biggest consumers but also the biggest promoters of "left wing though" (despite many not even reading anything beyond Judith Butler, and forget Marx and Engels and thinkers like Georges Sorel and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who by their admission are "evil white men"), the whole game was rigged from the start, so to say, by forces who drew philosophy towards a more linear, individualist line of though. This is reflected in the stances of "individual rights" by another so-called, Marxist, Michel Foucault. coupled with that, we look at how a lot of philosophers are two-faced, look at Sartre, who preached revolution all the while from his upper-class ivory tower, or even Seneca, going way back, who lived a very Epicurean life despite preaching Stoicism. this kind of "economically right, culturally left" stance is why I feel a lot of ideas are just a ceremony of opposites descending from a common source. even if third positionism (which I prefer) were implemented, it would follow the same pattern. That being said, one promotes the feelings of individualism, whose seeds were sown in the fundamentals of Atomism, which we cannot prove was nothing more than controlled opposition to Heraclitus, the formation of the "word" or logos, which held sway for most of the dark ages as the primary source of knowledge, until some filthy heretics brought up Democritus' ideas back to the fore when speaking of "the people".

    How do we destroy linear history? its hard to say, but if "like attracts like" (I've picked up some new concepts from New Thought, but that's for another article) the more people see progress as negative, and it will "really get that bad", don't worry, linear history will fall flat on its ass and the myth of Democritus will be destroyed. 

Also, happy birthday, William, my brother. you're gonna be 30 next year, and that's something I'm not sure I'm prepared for.

                                                                                                                            - J/Adolf Stalin