"Epicurean Philosophy and the Deception of Modern Globalist Ideologues", by Elli Pensa
When you write a book and reference Epicurean philosophy as if it were nothing more than…“stones, bricks, wood, and tiles—(these) are not useful when thrown down without being put in order"(Xenophon, Memorabilia 3.1.7).
And now, with Epicurean frankness of speech, it is time to examine and critique, with clear thought, a short excerpt from a book by Noah Harari, in which he discusses Epicurus! Since we study and apply Epicurean philosophy in our lives, we are especially interested in analyzing this text according to its principles—examining WHAT it states, HOW it states it, WHY it states it, and WHAT is the true purpose of this book!
First of all, the fact that this guy is named Noah is no coincidence. In his books, he builds, like his biblical predecessor, a New Ark, collaborating with his friend Schwaaaab (what a name! It sounds like someone smacked him hard! ), to promote a “great reset.”
These men, and others like them, grab nails, hammers, but most of all, saws—and they cut down, right before our eyes, an ancient tree, one that has always borne rich fruits. And this tree disturbs them the most, because it blocks their vision of the Ideal Sun of Absolute Justice—the global system they aim to establish and impose upon humanity! By chopping it down, they construct their New Ark, which they claim will “save” humanity from natural disasters, hunger, wars, diseases, and that science will evolve so much that humans will live beyond 150 years and even become immortal!!
We are talking about absolute delusion! About the forced or deceitful establishment of a new ideology—one based, of course, on the desire for immortality! Because without the craving for immortality and the illusion of absolute justice, no grand ideological or doctrinal scheme can be imposed.
But the question remains: Who are these "saviors" who think they will become "the undying ones"? And what will happen to the rest of the peoples? Guess!
What these men mainly claim is that all the world's problems stem from Homo sapiens sapiens—who are imperfect beings, as Nature created them! But who will be the post-human or god-man—"Homo Deus"—as fabricated by their mental “laboratory” through sheer imagination?
Let's take a look at Harari’s book, Homo Deus—A Brief History of Tomorrow, where he dares to mention Epicurus. I will provide commentary in parentheses, but the real revelation lies in the final paragraph, where you will clearly see the deceptive and immoral plan envisioned by him and others like him. And of course, let us emphasize—this is not about conspiracy theories. Everything I argue will be grounded in Nature, the nature of human beings, as understood and taught by Epicurean philosophy for over 2,300 years. But this is precisely what Harari hides skillfully in his writings—especially when he refers to the pragmatic Epicurus!
He writes: “Besides immortality (the first major plan), the second major plan on humanity’s agenda is likely the discovery of the keys to happiness.”
(Comment: Wow, so you'll never have to wonder again where you left your house keys or car keys—Noah will always find them for you! )
And he continues: “Throughout history, numerous thinkers, prophets, and ordinary people have defined happiness—not life itself—as the supreme good. In ancient Greece, the philosopher Epicurus explained that worshipping the gods was a waste of time.”
(Comment: Really?! That’s what Epicurus explained? Is that what Diogenes Laertius wrote about his life? Do historical sources claim that Epicurus showed no reverence toward the gods or the city’s festivals? Epicurus explicitly said that a wise person enjoys the city’s celebrations more than anyone else! He never opposed what human beings established as sources of joy and social cohesion. His philosophy embraced community, respect, and solidarity—as seen in his deep care for his family and numerous friends. Where does Epicurus say that life itself was not the supreme good? And how can philosophy be applied in life without life itself?)
He goes on: “Epicurus said that there is no life after death and that happiness is the sole purpose of life.”
(Comment: Yes, he did say there is no life after death, but why did he say it and how? And what happiness did Epicurus speak of? The word "happiness” or in Greek language as "ευτυχία-eutychia” literally means "good fortune", but Epicurus did not base life on fortune—he taught that all things must be measured according to one's capabilities, obtained through prudence and reason. Happiness is not a matter of chance but of conscious choices, made by examining reality through the senses and emotions, and through understanding the causes of phenomena so as to live pleasantly. Does this tell you anything? No, because for Harari, none of these matters!)
He then claims: “Most people in antiquity rejected Epicureanism, which today has become a mainstream view.”
(Comment: Epicureanism? Be cautious with “-ism” suffix, because they turn philosophy into a rigid system, stripping away identity and uniqueness of the human being. To Harari and his ilk, for someone having roots, individuality, uniqueness and cultural identity is just an “opinion”, rather than an existence, meaning, and way of life. And tell me, which era in antiquity rejected Epicurean philosophy, when during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, it spread across the entire world?! The claim that Epicureanism has now become “mainstream” is laughable—but here’s the twist: How has it been “mainstreamed”? As true Epicurean philosophy? Or as a paralyzed form of Stoicism?! This is the real issue!)
Harari concludes: “Skepticism about life after death not only drives humanity’s pursuit of immortality but also the search for earthly happiness. After all, who would want to live forever in eternal misery?”
(Comment: Who lives forever, dude?! Not even our Sun will exist forever! Who do you think you are selling this delusion to? As for Epicurus, he explicitly stated in his letter to Menoeceus: "The wise man does not despise life, nor does he fear not living, because neither is life a burden to him, nor is the absence of life considered evil. Just as he does not always choose the most food but the tastiest, so he does not seek the longest life but the most pleasant one." Does this tell you anything? No, because it doesn’t fit his agenda!)
And he continues… "For Epicurus, the pursuit of happiness was merely a personal quest."
(Comment: Seriously?! Only a personal quest?! What about friendship, which Epicurus considered an immortal good—the greatest value within a society, ensuring cohesion and survival of our species into the distant future? And what about the social contract of mutual interest—his principal doctrines of Justice, which arises naturally according to time and place, to prevent people from harming each other in any given society? Are these nothing to you?)
And he continues…"Conversely, modern thinkers view happiness as a collective endeavor. Without government planning, financial resources, and scientific research, people will not get far in their pursuit of happiness. If your country is ravaged by war, if its economy is in crisis, and if healthcare is non-existent, you are likely to be unhappy."
(Comment: So, will you tell us, who these “modern thinkers” are – those who oppose Epicurus, making their “plans” and claiming to work for “our happiness” for us, without us? Who are they, and what are their real intentions? Or will you hide it, just like Plato did, keeping secret who the philosopher-king, the guardians, and legislators of his imaginary ideal state will be? Forget it, because everything you claim has already been said by other dreamy idealists before you. You are not saying anything new or innovative…. Just copy-paste, forgery, and plagiarism – and maybe you should reflect on that a little! ).
And then he continues: “When Epicurus defined happiness as the ultimate good, he warned his students that, in order to be happy, they must work hard”.
(Comment: Too much work will kill you. Where did Epicurus ever say that one must work excessively to live pleasantly, justly, wisely, and attain eudaemonia? And what about the two remedies of the Tetrapharmakos—'The good is easy to obtain' and 'The terrible is easy to manage'? First, overcoming the fear of death and the image of god (like some punishing bogeyman), and then, through prudence, setting the algorithm of your desires according to your limits as a mortal being... What do all these mean to you and others like you? And another thing—did Epicurus ever call his followers "students"? No! He never had disciples or followers; he considered everyone his FRIEND. He demonstrated this throughout his life and even in his final act, his Will! For the wise man, as Epicurus said, gratitude for friends—whether present or absent—is the ultimate virtue, both in words and actions. The wise man never pretends to be wiser than others—and if corrected in an error, he experiences great joy. If faced with an issue of life and death, he would sacrifice his own life for a friend! These are Hellenic/Human values—do they mean anything to you? No, because to Harari and his ilk, Greek wisdom is incomprehensible—and “it’s all Greek to him”!)
And he continues: "Material achievements alone do not satisfy us for long. In fact, the blind pursuit of wealth, fame, and pleasure will only make us miserable."
(Comment: There is a non-blind pursuit. The obvious one that money and power are necessary tools—which support the pleasant life and survival itself! Without money, your country’s defense would collapse, leaving it vulnerable—just as we saw recently, where Hamas ripped apart the security of an entire nation. But oh! When it comes to your own country, money and power are perfectly fine—because they sustain your national defense and attack capabilities, right? So how about dropping the hypocrisy—you, Marah, Sarah, and the entire gang of deceivers?!).
And then he continues: "Epicurus advised moderation in eating and drinking and restraining one’s sexual desires."
(Comment: First off, Epicurus never spoke of “moderation.” Moderation is for mediocre minds—Epicurus spoke of natural limits, and the natural limit is set by the stomach itself. Here’s what he actually said: "It is not the stomach that is insatiable, as is generally said, but the false opinion that the stomach needs an unlimited amount to fill it". (Epicurus, Fragment 59). As for restraining sexual desires, Epicurus never said to restrain them moderately—he said to CONTROL them with prudence, according to one's limits, determining whether they lead to pleasure or pain for oneself and one's partner. We do not suppress our nature—we persuade her! We do not uproot our desires or constantly repress them—we evaluate them with prudence, and sweetly, gently, and softly we guide them toward harmony).
And he continues: "In the long term, Epicurus said, deep friendship provides greater satisfaction than reckless indulgence. Epicurus outlined an entire ethical system of things we should and shouldn’t do to guide humanity through the difficult path to happiness."
(Comment: What does "deep friendship" mean, and on where is based? Who are the true friends—those who stand beside you in danger, pain, and joy? What are the common virtues-values, and the common goal of friends? Will you define these things, or simply throw empty words into the void, juxtaposing friendship against "reckless indulgence", what dialectic tricks are these? Epicurus did not outline an “ethical system”—he founded ethics on natural science (Physiology) and his methodology of Canon (Epistemology), transitioning EASILY, not difficultly, between them—placing all three in perfect synergy and alignment).
"Happiness does not come easily," Harari insists—claiming that someone must undertake a "grand design" and a "great reset" for you, without you. He writes: "Epicurus seems to have understood something important. Happiness does not come easily. Despite our unprecedented achievements in recent decades, it is not at all clear that modern people are significantly more satisfied than their ancestors. There is an ominous sign that, despite increased prosperity, comfort, and security, suicide rates in the developed world are much higher than in traditional societies. After all, according to Bentham, who relied on Epicurus, happiness is nothing but pleasure and the absence of pain, and beyond pleasure and pain, there is no good or evil. Whoever tries to derive good and evil from something else (e.g., God's word or national interest) is deceiving you—as he deceives himself."
(Comment: Listen carefully, everyone: According to this sly manipulation, God's word (a fictional construct) is equivalent to your national interest (a real one). This is the level of cunning and deceit we are dealing with!!).
And he continues writing, revealing the core premise of his argument: “According to the life sciences, happiness and suffering are nothing more than different balances of bodily sensations. We do not react to events in the external world, but to sensations within our own bodies. No one suffers because they lost their job, got divorced, or because the government started a war. The only thing that makes people unhappy is the unpleasant sensations inside their bodies”.
Comment: First of all, you are deliberately confusing "senses" (sight, hearing, smell, taste, etc.) with "emotions" (pain-pleasure)—and you're doing this on purpose, to distort the clear image of epicurean, who built everything upon his senses and emotions—or as he called them, his passions. With these, he measured reality, acquiring knowledge of the world and the universe surrounding him. With these, he established laws, and when necessary, he changed them! But you confuse the epicurean man—the free, blissful, and brave person—with the abstract and hollow constructs you have inside your own mind. And what do you primarily have in your mind? The distortion of Epicurean philosophy—reducing it to paralyzed Stoicism.
After all, this is precisely what the Stoics say and advise: “In every situation, one must be indifferent to things in themselves, because only our judgments about them matter.” But how can one be indifferent to the actual consequences of external events? The only way is to suppress one's emotions entirely—an approach that ultimately disconnects the individual from reality. However, it is crucial to emphasize that Stoic 'judgments' are inherently flawed, as they ignore the fundamental role of sensory perception and emotional response in measuring the phenomena, their causes, and their consequences. Without the ability to observe, feel, and evaluate external conditions through real human experience, one cannot fully grasp the impact of the world on one's existence.
Epicurus understood that the senses and emotions are not obstacles but essential tools for acquiring knowledge, allowing individuals to assess pleasure and pain objectively and engage actively with life, rather than passively enduring it. Here we see how they manufacture an obedient servant—a mind molded into passive submission, accepting so-called philosophical 'doctrines' that suppress emotions, sensory perception, and independent thought. This is precisely the goal: to craft individuals who do not react, who do not challenge, who do not truly live—but merely exist as controlled entities within a rigid structure.
This is where the dangerous affinity between Stoicism and Buddhism becomes evident—both seeking to attain Apathy and Nirvana, a state of complete detachment and abandonment from the world and the reality of life. A mind stripped of its capacity to feel, to assess, to engage with external truths becomes the perfect subject for manipulation. Αn ideal puppet, bound to indifference, unable to recognize the deeper truth of existence. Epicurus understood this well. The senses and emotions are not obstacles to wisdom; they are its foundations. They allow humans to assess pleasure and pain to distinguish between what fosters life and what diminishes it, to engage actively with life rather than merely endure it passively.
And, just as Epictetus, the Stoic, used to say: 'Did your child die in an accident, such as a train crash? Do not cry, do not be disturbed, and do not grieve, because this was merely an event that was 'rendered.' Did your wife, husband, brother, mother, or father die? Do not cry, because they, too, were 'rendered.' Did someone take your land? Do not be distressed, because those who took it—you will simply say they were evil—and that it was merely returned to its rightful owners. Did you lose your job, go through a divorce, or has your country entered a war? Do not be disturbed, do not speak out, because if you feel any emotion, then 'your sensations' are to blame—and these must either be suppressed or scourged with a whip, from morning to night.
But here lies the great flaw: by following these Stoic directives, one never seeks the true causes behind phenomena—one never questions who is truly responsible for harm, and thus, never seeks justice. This enforced passivity strips individuals of the ability to recognize injustice, to identify manipulation, and ultimately, to challenge wrongdoers. It is not wisdom—it is submission disguised as philosophical resilience.
Hey, self-obsessed Stoic disciple, where are the emotions? Where is the path toward empathy and solidarity, when another person beside us shares their pain and turmoil?
Ah, so, according to what you say, we are supposed to tell them: 'What you say is not real, because what matters above all is that I do not disturb my "inner sensations"! The ideas you promote have nothing to do with Epicurus and his philosophy. They are written and disseminated with the deliberate intention of distorting his teachings, making them appear as paralyzed Stoicism.
No, self-obsessed Stoic apprentice! Epicurus stated that the wise man will have greater sensitivity toward emotions than anyone else, and that this will not hinder his wisdom. Even if the world collapses around him, he will cry, grieve, and lament—and when this sorrow fully manifests, he will gather himself with prudence and reason and rebuild anew, upon new foundations, everything that was destroyed, because a true wise man does not merely weep—he seeks the causes behind the collapse, he questions what led to destruction, and he pursues justice, even standing before a court to hold wrongdoers accountable. If necessary, he will redefine the laws, establishing new, more beneficial foundations for society, ensuring that such devastation does not occur again. For wisdom is not passive endurance—it is the continuous process of adaptation, change, and the measurement of real benefit against harm, which ultimately drives the evolution of all things.
And by doing all this, the wise man does not merely restore what was lost—he fills every void of meaning that burdens his existence, transmuting despair into beautiful, courageous, and deeply human actions. He eliminates pain through such ecumenical and regenerative deeds, transforming sorrow into a force of joy and life that uplifts others, expanding the essence of wisdom beyond himself and into the very fabric of the world.
This is precisely how Epicurean wisdom manifests itself—not only in personal transformation but in actions that benefit all of humankind. A striking example of this is Diogenes of Oinoanda, who, in the 2nd century AD, inscribed the principles of Epicurean philosophy on a massive wall in the Agora of his city, ensuring that both his fellow citizens and foreign visitors could read them. He did not confine wisdom to private study but made it accessible to all, recognizing that the pursuit of eudaemonia and pleasure is not just an individual goal but a collective endeavor for the betterment of all people. Through such acts, the Epicurean transforms philosophy into a living, shared experience, truly fulfilling the purpose of wisdom—to benefit the entire ecumene.
The human being you describe—as Epicurean—in your book, monsieur Harari, is not the human who exists in the Hellenic-Epicurean way, shaping life and the world around him. Because to exist as truly Epicurean means above all: to feel deeply, to love the human being, and to defend his highest and qualitative values—not to dissolve them into empty abstractions and cold calculations.
How else could it be, when the human being is the most tragic, yet the most magnificent creature in the universe? A being that does not merely endure its existence but fights to shape it and simultaneously shape itself. A being that creates and recreates itself through its works, giving form to reality and redefining itself at every step of its journey.
So take your ‘Great Reset agendas’ and put them where you know they belong—in the void where human essence is discarded, reduced, and mechanized.
We, the free spirits, the thinkers, the creators, reject the chains of mechanized existence. For the true path of life is not dictated—it is shaped, lived, and defined by those who dare to stand unshaken before the forces that seek to silence them.
And as Sophocles, the great tragic poet of the Greeks, revealed—the Hypsipolis (high-spirit citizen) is the one who lives with prudence, harmonizing wisdom with justice, truth with freedom. And who embodies this ideal more than the Epicurean human being—who does not settle for passive existence but shapes and recreates himself, living with authenticity, pleasure, and freedom!
Let it be known: No system, no ideology, no machine will ever erase the force that moves the human being forward—the unpredictable spirit, the unstoppable will, the eternal deviation. For as long as deviation exists, so does freedom. And as long as freedom exists, so will those who choose to live—not as numbers, but as human beings. Αnd that is because: human life—and all life—holds intrinsic great value, and it is non-negotiable!
And let it be written, with capital and bold letters, across all the walls and all the ages:
> NO AGENDA SHALL EVER SILENCE THE VOICE OF THE FREE SPIRITS<
