1. The Temporal Framework of the Ancients vs. Moderns
To modern individuals, time is experienced as a linear progression—a unidirectional, irreversible flow constantly moving toward the future. It is why Ludwig von Mises, a master of the Austrian School of economics, observed:
“Man is subject to the passing of time. He is born, grows, grows old, and dies. His time is scarce. He must economize it as he economizes other scarce factors. The economizing of time has a peculiar character because of the uniqueness and irreversibility of the temporal order.”
On the other hand, time for the modern individual is homogeneous. Granted, we might briefly encounter moments of heterogeneous time when listening to our favorite music or immersing ourselves in a dopamine-fueled festival. For a fleeting instant, we may forget the clock, reminisce about days gone by, or fall into a dreamy ecstasy; however, these moments are ephemeral. Because these fleeting sensations lack any transcendent anchor, they remain human experiences, divorced from any existential salvation. The religious historian Mircea Eliade captured this modern condition as a framework of time “in which there is no room for a divine presence.”
For ancient humans, however, time operated on an different dimension. To them, the only temporal reality endowed with meaning was the “sacred primordial origin”—the illud tempus—when the initial creation of the cosmos occurred. Ordinary, individual, and historical time was dismissed as meaningless noise. Consequently, returning to the primordial dawn of creation was not just a suspension of profane time, but a transcendent experience.
To bridge the gap back to this primordial origin, ancient humans relied on symbolic experiences such as festivals and rituals. These events were structured to eternally replicate the exemplary actions performed by the gods during creation. The exact moment an individual mirrored those divine gestures, their ego dissolved, allowing them to unite with the divine and inhabit an eternal present. “Once upon a time” (in illo tempore)—the specific window wherein gods, ancestors, or heroes first acted—was the only time ancient humans recognized as authentic and sacred.
Why, then, did the temporal frameworks of the ancients and the moderns diverge so drastically? And what are the critical implications of this civilizational shift for independent producers?
(1) Every Existence Degenerates Merely by Existing
Whether living organism or inanimate object, everything that exists within the matrix of time inevitably wears down and degenerates. To regain vitality, an ontological reset is mandatory. Ancient humans deduced this cosmic truth directly from nature, with the moon serving as their ultimate paradigm. For the moon to be reborn (the full moon), it must endure a cyclical, periodic death (the waning moon).
Humans are bound to the exact same law. The mere act of existing subjects an individual to friction, wearing them down and aging them. To achieve genuine regeneration, one must return to a state of the “formless.” To be formless is, paradoxically, to occupy a state of pure potentiality where anything can materialize—it is the very definition of creative power. A human must be periodically re-absorbed into the primordial chaos of the beginning; only then can their internal clock be reset and their existential reality restored.
Living under the crushing weight of nature’s power, ancient humans harbored a constant, ambient terror of this continuous degeneration. Consequently, they believed that if they could successfully journey back to the primordial origin where the cosmos was born, they could be born anew. Because the order of the cosmos and the natural world repeated this cycle of death and rebirth every year, they perceived their internal biological structure as homologous to the universe.
Across both East and West, ancient civilizations placed paramount importance on rituals designed to facilitate this return to the primordial origin. By intensely immersing themselves in the mechanical repetition of the sacred gestures performed by the Creator, their immediate sense of chronological time dissolved, and a profound fullness of being flooded back.
Within this cyclical framework, once these reset rituals were executed at the dawn of the New Year, the mistakes, debts, and sins accumulated over the past year were understood to be wiped clean. The methodology for returning to this formless state of chaos was defined by a “emptying out.” Its mechanisms included: fasting, baptism, purgation, the recitation of cosmogonic myths, ritual orgies, extinguishing and rekindling the sacred fire, and the banishment or execution of a designated scapegoat laden with collective defilement.
(2) The Collapse of the Eternal Return: The Axial Age
Why, then, did this golden archaic era—where everything circled peacefully within a closed, sacred loop—come to an end?
Karl Jaspers illuminated this civilizational mutation through his concept of the Axial Age. He investigated why, during a roughly 600-year window spanning from 800 BCE to 200 BCE, the foundations of all major human religions, philosophies, and systems of thought emerged simultaneously. According to Jaspers, the colossal civilizations of the globe during this era had virtually zero cross-cultural contact. Yet, ideas that overturned the paradigm of humanity burst forth almost concurrently: Socrates and Plato in Greece, the Prophets in Israel, Gautama Buddha in India, and Confucius and Laozi in China.
The reason these titans emerged during the exact same historical window is that the source of human suffering and civilizational bankruptcy shifted away from “Nature” and onto “Civilization” itself.
Nature, though brutal and terrifying, operates on predictable, cyclical rhythms. Just as winter surrenders to spring, destruction in the natural world is always a prelude to regeneration. Thus, by offering sacrifices to the Creator and reenacting primordial rituals, humans could easily journey back to the good old days. However, with the advancement of agriculture and metallurgy, colossal empires like China, Persia, Babylonia, and Assyria strode onto the historical stage.
The wars, massacres, and systemic plunder perpetrated by these empires inflicted a flavor of suffering entirely detached from nature. These were historic, irreversible events. The sheer trauma aside, because the genesis of this suffering was entirely anthropogenic, it was not something that could be reversed or erased through religious ritual. Thus, a “linear view of time” was born—the realization that the past is constructed of unrepeatable historical milestones, and time is merely a unidirectional march toward death.
From an archaic viewpoint, it was an uninterpretable catastrophe that the petty, un-real events of the human realm could inflict suffering far more severe than the cosmos engineered by God, while remaining entirely irreversible. Humanity was driven into a vacuum of meaning. The masses began to desperately ask: “Who am I? What is the core of suffering? How should society be governed?” Meanwhile, the cosmic Creator who once governed the temporal framework of the ancients was gradually relegated to the background, becoming a detached, “idle god” (Deus otiosus).
The philosophical systems that materialized during the Axial Age were civilization’s response to fill that void. For instance, Laozi, writing centuries before the common era, perceived that human suffering was engineered by the state. Hence, he championed the idea that the highest form of governance is one where the populace is barely aware the state exists, believing that those who live detached from artificial institutions never truly grow old. Zhuangzi mirrored this sentiment, positing that the more an individual is deemed “useful” by the state, the more their very utility condemns them to a premature, exhausting death. Instead, it was those discarded by the state apparatus—the wheelwright spinning his craft or the physically deformed outcast existing outside the state’s matrix of “utility”—who lived out their natural lifespan and successfully actualized their own existence.
2. Is the Painless Progress Demanded by Democratic Citizens Actually Possible?
(1) The Temporal Framework of Christianity and Democracy: Promises of Free Honey Radically Elevate Time Preference
[The Christian View of Time: A Hybrid of Linear History and Archaic Eschatology]
Eliade asserted that the linear historical framework adopted by the Hebrew people and Judeo-Christianity forms the archetype of the Western conception of time. This is the philosophy that an event, once occurred, is irreversible, and time marches endlessly toward the future. The Hebrew people were a collective that suffered deeply at the hands of advanced civilizations—enduring Egyptian bondage, the Babylonian captivity, and the trauma of the Diaspora. Naturally, they demanded an answer to a question: “Why must we suffer like this?”
The Hebrew prophets delivered a revolutionary response: “We are the Chosen People. This suffering is a singular, unrepeatable historical event orchestrated by Yahweh deliberately to discipline us.” This marked a seismic shift in hermeneutics; it meant that the Creator, who in the archaic era remained detached from human history, had actively stepped into the historical arena as a dominant actor.
The absolute climax of this paradigm was the Incarnation—the birth of Jesus. Upon the historical soil of suffering cultivated by the Hebrew people, humanity introduced the figure of Christ as an undeniable, historical flesh-and-blood reality. Once Jesus shouldered the original sin of humanity and endured the crucifixion, time became an absolute straight line that could never again loop back to the primordial origin.
Furthermore, the promise of the Last Judgment and salvation shifted the “good old days” away from the past and projected them squarely into the future. However, following the era of Saint Augustine, the Church institutionalized itself into a sprawling, bureaucratic cartel. When the flock desperately demanded to know, “When exactly is the Last Judgment coming?” the Church failed to provide a straight answer. Instead, they maintained the convenient position that the Kingdom of Heaven was already manifest within the terrestrial Church infrastructure, hand-waving the apocalypse away by claiming that only Christ knows the hour.
Setting aside the hypocrisy and avarice of the institutionalized Church, the suffering of actual history was not alleviated in the slightest. In rebellion, radical Christian reformers championed millenarianism or drifted into Gnosticism, finding themselves branded as heretics. The peasantry, weary of abstract theology, cried out, “We don’t know about the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus, just send us some rain.” Thus, their latent archaic longings erupted once more. Because Christianity claimed that Christ’s resurrection and return were “promised historical facts,” yet maintained an ambiguous, evasive stance on when the actual liquidation of history would arrive, a massive vacuum of meaning reopened in daily life. Into that void rushed heresies, alchemy (the precursor to modern science), witchcraft, and madness. The conservative Church tolerated these anomalies to a degree, but swung the blade of the Inquisition the moment any voice dared to cross the line.
[The Democratic View of Time: Shifting from ‘No Pain, No Gain’ to ‘No Pain, Yes Gain’]
The temporal framework of the modern democratic citizen shares its basic DNA with Judeo-Christianity in that it is rooted in linear history. However, it features one fatally distinct mutation: the delusion that “progress is achievable without lowering one’s time preference, and without enduring the agony of burning away one’s entitled ego.”
To achieve this progress, no duties or conditions are imposed upon the democratic citizen. Eradicating the friction and suffering of life is viewed as the default, baseline obligation of the democratic welfare state. Consequently, citizens believe the state is obligated to take absolute responsibility for their lives. They view it as their right to judge politicians and bureaucrats who fail this mandate via the ballot box and civil complaints. Ultimately, the democratic citizen consolidates their votes behind politicians who promise not No Pain, No Gain, but No Pain, Yes Gain.
As governance mutated from monarchy to democracy, the mechanism of promising the masses “free honey” while bypassing the prerequisite of suffering mirrored the historic corruption of religion. Over time, both systems ceased demanding that the masses endure the agony of lowering their time preference or scorching their egos.
For instance, in ancient Judaism, historical suffering was a non-negotiable prerequisite to validate the narrative of the Chosen People and awaken a degenerated flesh and national spirit. Christianity diluted this raw suffering down to the mere performance of “repentance and faith.” The early Church realized that to expand its empire beyond the Jews and into the pagan world, it could no longer demand that the masses endure grueling suffering.
Thus, they abandoned the truth that entering the realm of the divine required a rigorous Proof-of-Work (PoW)—circumcision, adherence to the law, covenants, blood sacrifice, and divine punishment. Instead, they transitioned the system to a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) model: “Just believe,” “Just buy this indulgence,” and salvation is yours. Naturally, this triggered a hyperinflation of the divine, diluting its existential value. (I will detail this specific trajectory of “The Desacralization of Jude-Christianity: The Shift from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake” in a subsequent article).
The core issue is that both democracy and Christianity directly depend on the masses for the power and resources required to sustain their respective institutions. Consequently, they maintain their grip by peddling a poison: “The politicians/Jesus will shoulder all the suffering and deliver progress on a silver platter; you simply need to sit still and do nothing.” This coddling renders the masses incompetent and dependent. Because the public instinctively loathes taking responsibility for their own destinies, they aggressively swallow this poison, adopting an attitude of: “I gave you my vote/my prayers, now step up and make my life comfortable.”
However, just as institutional Christianity failed, democracy has been running its course for nearly a century, yet the suffering of humanity remains unalleviated. Instead, as the democratic apparatus has aged and degenerated, politicians have perfected the art of bypassing the separation of powers, resulting in an endless parade of legislative populism. The resulting inflation and predatory taxation compel individuals to go all-in on short-term consumption rather than long-term production.
A permanent state of affairs has emerged where no matter how much capital one earns, nothing of real value remains. Deep down in their subconscious, democratic citizens harbor a skepticism toward the “progress” promised by democracy, alongside a terror of bankruptcy. They simply keep their mouths shut because they know that openly declaring this sacred democratic institution is a failure will result in immediate social liquidation and cancellation.
Ultimately, the temporal framework of the modern democratic citizen exists in a state of ambivalence. They do not genuinely believe in the linear progress promised by history. Yet, enduring the pain of lowering their time preference and sacrificing their inflated ego is a duty they refuse to accept—and a feat their fragile minds can no longer tolerate. Furthermore, they are far too scientifically minded and logical to actually believe in the literal resurrection and return of Christ.
Yet, they lack the cyclical temporal framework of the ancients, because modern individuals are simply not exposed to the raw wildness of nature enough to crave a return to a primordial dawn. The naked terror inflicted by the cosmos and Mother Nature is heavily buffered in modern society.
This ambivalence forces humanity to reject both a utopian future eschatology and a sacred past origin. As a result, their time preference for the only temporal reality remaining—the immediate present—skyrockets to an extreme degree. The democratic welfare state dutifully services this frantic mass desire by running the fiat printing presses at infinite velocity, deploying every policy tool exclusively to prevent the liquidation of the present market.
(2) The State’s Fiat Currency Did Not Corrupt the Time Preference of Democratic Citizens
This is the precise juncture where my philosophy diverges from mainstream Austrian economics. The masters of the Austrian School assert that the state artificially corrupted the public’s time preference by enforcing a fiat currency system. Therefore, they argue that if we restore a hard money standard, time preferences will naturally drop, and humanity will return to a sound, healthy economy.
I assert the exact opposite. Fiat currency does not drive time preference upward. Rather, the baseline time preference of democratic citizens is already so high that it inevitably forces the corruption of the currency.
Consequently, even if a gold standard were implemented tomorrow, it would not last; the system would backslide into credit expansion and debt mechanics within a matter of years, forcing the re-adoption of a fiat currency framework to sustain it. Because the masses actively participate in the mechanism of resource allocation—which is the very definition of politics—they will corrupt the monetary system by any means necessary to escape the suffering of a market liquidation. They will choose this path even if it guarantees catastrophic inflation down the road.
Therefore, evangelizing for a gold or Bitcoin standard within a democratic society is largely a fool’s errand. Without a robust republican principle capable of checking the high time-preference pressures of the masses, an emasculated legislative branch, and a rule of law designed to protect private property rights above all else, the ambition to forcefully plunder production profits and manufacture fake paper credit will always claw its way back.
Take the crypto ecosystem as a case in point. Bitcoin is celebrated as an alternative monetary framework because it prevents central banks from playing hazardous games with infinite issuance. Yet, even the Ethereum ecosystem is constantly buckling under systemic pressure to expand credit and run fractional-reserve scams using smart contracts, failing to prevent the proliferation of shitcoins. Even the Stacks (STX) ecosystem, in which I have personally invested, is not immune; despite its security being anchored directly to Bitcoin, the introduction of sBTC opens the door for artificial credit expansion.
Because the democratic citizen possesses an high time preference, they value the hyper-liquidity and marketability of highly speculative shitcoins and derivative assets far above a tangible, physical system of roundabout production and its foundational backing assets (such as blue-chip equities, factory land, long-term bonds, or spot Bitcoin). And as Carl Menger observed, the good possessing the highest marketability invariably triumphs in the evolutionary competition of the market.
However, if a framework that caps public political participation and suppresses time-preference pressure is guaranteed by a constitutional ironclad, a monumental shift occurs. The certainty that profits will not be plundered by inflation, taxation, or regulation grants an individual a profound sense of autonomy and omnipotence—the realization that they can build an optimistic future with their own hands. Consequently, producers gain a structural incentive to endure the long, painful timelines required to craft consumer goods that maximize the subjective utility of the consumer. They will begin to trust the explosive productivity that materializes in the future.
The public, too, will cease chasing speculative casino assets that could disintegrate tomorrow. Instead, they will assign a higher marketability score to the physical roundabout production systems that guarantee future value, and the hard money that anchors it. Under such a spontaneous order, hard money naturally ascends to become the dominant currency of its own accord. The currency is the effect of the evolutionary paradigm, never the cause.
(3) Historical Verification: Monetary Debasement Induced by Mass Pressure
To grasp how the high time-preference demands of the masses corrupt currency, we must look at the reality of history.
[The Debasement of the Roman Denarius]
The most flawless case study of monetary debasement in human history is the Roman denarius silver coin. During the early days of the Republic, the denarius boasted a silver purity of over 95%. However, ever since Emperor Nero first shaved the silver content down to roughly 90%, the coin degenerated, collapsing to a 0.5% purity by the late third century during the Imperial crisis.
Modern democratic institutions—acting as the proxy for the masses—conveniently attribute this phenomenon to the decadence of aristocrats, military greed, and moral corruption. They subtly engineer a teleological narrative: because the citizenry suffered under a tyrannical autocracy, the introduction of democracy became a moral and structural necessity.
The historical reality, however, tells a different story. First, any individual possessing an ounce of intellectual sovereignty must harbor a skepticism: why would a emperor, possessing absolute control over his domain and an inherited imperial estate, deliberately choose to dilute his own family wealth? Is he crazy?
The conclusion is clear: the debasement of the Roman denarius was a consequence of intense welfare pressures exerted by the masses upon an imperialist state that had grown fat on the spoils of war and colonization. This exact playbook would later be replicated with 100% fidelity in early modern France and contemporary America. Let us first dissect Rome.
As Rome expanded its imperial footprint through colonial plunder, it siphoned wealth from the periphery into the core. Paradoxically, this dynamic caused a tidal wave of jobless plebeians and displaced masses to flood into the metropolitan center of Rome. Crucially, there was no industrial manufacturing apparatus capable of absorbing this massive influx of labor, as the productivity revolutions of modern capitalism had not yet been conceived.
Consequently, the Roman elite harbored an dread of anonymous mass riots. To buy social peace and secure their political regimes, successive administrations engineered a sweeping welfare infrastructure, distributing staggering quantities of grain to the populace free of charge every month. This rudimentary “universal basic income” scheme was the famous Cura Annonae (the Grain Dole). To keep the masses sedated, they supplemented this free food with free entertainment, staging gladiator games and chariot races on a constant loop.
Because the velocity of real production growth was negligible while the maintenance costs of this populist infrastructure aggressively spiraled out of control, emperors found themselves trapped. Facing a structural deficit, they resorted to the only tool at their disposal: the systematic dilution of silver.
Furthermore, because Rome had been a war machine fueled by territorial conquest since its inception, the military apparatus wielded immense structural leverage. By the late Empire, the very lives of the emperors were held hostage by the Praetorian Guard and the legions. Every time a new emperor ascended the throne, the military demanded an immediate financial bonus under the implicit threat of assassination.
Compounding the crisis, imperialist growth through resource plunder had hit a hard ceiling. Every piece of productive, fertile territory had already been annexed during Rome’s golden zenith. The only lands left unvandalized were the barren wildernesses of Germania or regions where the administrative cost of governance exceeded any potential tax yield. Trapped in a corner where both aggressive taxation and further territorial expansion were impossible, the late emperors had no choice but to debase the currency to manufacture fake, unbacked credit.
[Did the French Revolution Truly Explode Due to Bourbon Extravagance?]
Mainstream academic curricula teach that the French Revolution of 1789 was sparked by the corruption and vanity of the Bourbon monarchy. Marie Antoinette is painted as a villainess who uttered the infamous line, “Let them eat cake” when told the people had no bread—a piece of black propaganda later exposed as a fabrication engineered by revolutionary factions.
But does this narrative survive basic accounting? In truth, the luxury expenditures of the Bourbon court consumed less than 5% of the total national budget. The real catalyst that bankrupt the French treasury was a toxic cocktail of military intervention in the American Revolutionary War and extensive welfare subsidies enforced through price controls.
During this era, France was locked in a bitter geopolitical duel with Great Britain for global hegemony. Having suffered a crushing defeat in the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), France had been stripped of its lucrative North American colonies and Indian trade networks. Because war was the most straightforward engine of national wealth accumulation prior to the Industrial Revolution, King Louis XVI was naturally waiting for a window of retaliation. That window flew open when George Washington launched a war of independence against the British Crown in 1776.
France plunged into the conflict with enthusiasm, deploying massive naval armadas and land forces directly to the theater. The fatal error, however, was that this astronomical war expenditure was financed not through taxation, but through massive bond issuance—in other words, debt. While the intervention successfully secured American independence, it loaded more than 1.3 billion livres of fresh debt onto the French balance sheet, swelling the total national debt to a titanic multiple of the empire’s annual tax revenue. By the late 1780s, over 50% of France’s entire national budget was consumed purely by interest payments, plunging the state into a permanent twilight of pending bankruptcy.
To make matters worse, the late 1780s were hit by catastrophic crop failures triggered by an unseasonal winter. To the average French citizen, bread was a biological lifeline, accounting for up to 90% of their daily caloric intake. As the supply of flour collapsed, the price of a single loaf of bread skyrocketed to consume a staggering 80% of an ordinary laborer’s daily wage. The starving masses of Paris stood constantly primed to storm the palace gates.
The administration of Louis XVI faced an immediate crisis: they had to prevent a liquidation of the regime tonight. Trapped, they borrowed even more capital to distribute bread subsidies and artificially suppress the market price of commodities. Predictably, this market distortion choked off the remaining supply while driving real prices into a frenzy. As this vicious cycle repeated, the real purchasing power of the consumer cratered to zero. Ultimately, knowing well it was a suicide pill, the Crown was forced to play its final card: attempting to levy taxes on the exempt aristocracy and clergy via the Estates-General. This friction was the spark that exploded into the French Revolution.
In conclusion, the driving force of the French Revolution was not royal indulgence. It was a structural systemic failure: a state buried under a mountain of uncontrollable war debt attempting to pacify a starving populace whose time preference had exploded to an absolute extreme. By deploying artificial price controls and free credit (subsidies) to manage the crisis, they caused the entire system to combust. Whether in ancient Rome or early modern France, the underlying homology remains identical: when real productivity stagnates or shrinks while the dual pressures of welfare and war intensify, the state will inevitably choose to destroy the value of its currency to evade immediate bankruptcy.
[Nixon’s 1971 Suspension of Gold Convertibility]
The invariant law observed across ancient Rome and revolutionary France—high time-preference mass pressure induced by war and welfare → stagnation and attempts to distort market → national fiscal insolvency → monetary debasement—continues to govern the modern world. The monarchs of old did not launch wars because they were megalomaniacs; they did so because the primary source of national wealth in a pre-industrial era was the physical plunder of land, labor, gold, and silver. And even in the United States, an empire boasting unprecedented industrial productivity, the adoption of a democratic framework means the regime can never truly escape the short-term performance imposed by the electorate.
Modern history books frame President Richard Nixon’s suspension of gold convertibility on August 15, 1971, as a strategic calculation designed to cement American global financial hegemony. What was the reality? The decision was a rear-guard action forced upon the state because the fiscal demands of the Vietnam War combined with intense welfare pressures from the electorate had caused the supply of paper dollars to completely outstrip America’s actual gold reserves.
The fuse for the “Nixon Shock” was lit by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration’s “Great Society” initiatives—a massive populist infrastructure designed to cater to an electorate whose short-term time preferences had exploded. Cloaked in the moral imperative that citizens possessed an unalienable right to be fed and medicated by virtue of their sovereignty, the state surrendered. To fund an unprecedented expansion of entitlement spending—including Medicare, Medicaid, and massive federal education subsidies—the government ran the printing presses at breakneck speed. Coupled with drain of the Vietnam War, the United States slid onto the exact same bankruptcy track that France had traveled a century prior.
Crucially, this trajectory was never the tyrannical, isolated decision of Richard Nixon the individual. If the American public had demanded fiscal austerity and championed a hard money (gold) standard to preserve long-term productivity, Nixon would have been immediately impeached and punished as a rogue actor who defiled the dollar. Instead, the American public greeted Nixon’s suspension of the gold standard with roaring enthusiasm. On Monday morning, the very day after the announcement, the Dow Jones Industrial Average staged what was, at the time, its largest single-day point gain in history.
The mechanics of the 1971 Nixon Shock are straightforward. Because of the extreme high-time-preference pressure from the masses demanding that the state deliver both welfare expansions and military victory without raising taxes, the United States printed a mountain of paper unbacked by physical gold.
The French administration under Charles de Gaulle noticed this mathematical divergence and began dispatching literal warships packed with paper dollars to American ports, demanding physical gold bullion in return every single week. When Germany and Great Britain joined the fray, demanding massive gold redemptions of their own, the United States faced a bank run. Nixon locked the teller window and told the international community: “The vault is closed. If you don’t like it, feel free to defend yourselves against the Soviet Union on your own dime, or try invading us.”
[Table: The 3-Stage Law of Monetary Debasement]
| Stage / Law | The Roman Denarius | The French Livre | The US Dollar (Nixon Shock) |
| Stage 1: High Time-Preference Mass Pressure (Welfare & War) | Grain dole (Annona) + legionary bonus demands to suppress urban plebeian riots | Bread price surge from failed harvest + debt from American Revolutionary War financing | LBJ’s Medicare/Medicaid entitlements + Vietnam War fiscal drain |
| Stage 2: Structural Distortion & Fake Credit (Market Manipulation) | Silver content diluted 95% → 0.5% to fund structural deficit without real growth | Artificial price controls destroy supply; massive bond issuance defers Bourbon collapse | Dollar printing outstrips gold reserves; chronic inflation triggers foreign bank runs |
| Stage 3: Ultimate Liquidation | Crisis of the Third Century — hyperinflation, institutional collapse, military coups | Estates-General friction ignites the French Revolution | Aug 15, 1971 — gold convertibility suspended; fiat printing press goes infinite |
(4) The High Time Preference of Democratic Citizens and the Survival Pressures Facing Producers
The modern democratic welfare state operates under more severe pressure to debase its currency than ancient Rome or early modern France ever did. Modern democracy constitutionally guarantees the right to riot and strike. Until the dawn of the modern era, the military and the Church were the only organized factions capable of extracting rent from the system. Today, however, a sprawling matrix of civil organizations and special-interest groups wield their votes as weapons, chasing economic rent and distorting the market.
Slickly navigating a linear view of time, modern citizens share a faith in “free progress”—the conviction that all existential suffering must be solved by the state apparatus. Consequently, unless real productivity can absorb this burden, the structural collapse and corruption of the currency becomes an mathematical certainty.
In the nascent stages of modern democracy, time preferences had not yet degenerated to this extreme degree. At that time, a robust republican shield existed to check the masses’ desire to plunder producer profits and demand artificial credit expansion. Indeed, the meteoric rise of the United States prior to the 1930s was not a triumph of mass democracy, but rather a victory of the republican spirit.
However, all institutions eventually age and develop systemic fractures. And no matter how magnificent a system is on paper, if the human beings operating it vandalize it with the blades of short-term legislation and manufactured moralism, the institution itself is destroyed.
When the mechanisms designed to check the tyranny of the 51% majority dissolved, long-term capital reinvestment into roundabout production predictably stagnated. Artificial government interventions rushed to fill the void, initiating a permanent loop of massive market liquidations triggered by malinvestment.
Confronted with this reality, democratic citizens have begun to harbor a creeping skepticism. They are waking up to the reality that the “painless progress” promised by democracy is actually a toxic mortgage levied on future generations—a credit scam that drives up the cost of capital and suffocates economic growth. Realizing they can never return to the “good old days,” democratic citizens are mutating into something more predatory.
For instance, rather than accumulating their own capital to reinvest in genuine production, citizens scramble to maximize their debt leverage to hoard physical commodities and speculative casino assets. The state mirrors this behavior with absolute fidelity: it violently expands its sovereign debt to spray fiat cash across the populace while engaging in hyper-expensive imperialist geopolitical rivalries. The question of how this debt will be repaid in the future is greeted with a collective shrug: “Who cares?”
Under a sound, hard-money regime (such as a gold standard), a benchmark interest rate of 5% was recognized as an healthy, low cost of capital. Today, however, because the mountain of debt built upon fake credit is so high, if central banks do not suppress interest rates down to 1% or 2%, the everyday life of the entire populace collapses into unmanageability.
This predatory time preference of the democratic citizen exerts a lethal pressure on the shoulders of producers. A producer is, by definition, an entity possessing a comparative advantage in making things properly, but lacking an edge in selling them (marketing). The ideal environment for a producer is a society with a low baseline time preference, which allows for the patient construction of advanced, highly optimized roundabout production processes. A tariff-free, global free market—where a producer can master a single product, drive marginal production costs down to zero, and export it worldwide—is the absolute zenith for this class.
However, when the populace develops a time preference anchored in the immediate present, even master craftsmen are subjected to intense market pressures to abandon quality, print inventory quickly, and sell it at a premium through aggressive marketing. The masses look at this hyper-marketing trend and comfort themselves with the delusion that product quality has reached a state of “universal excellence” (upward equalization).
The reality is the opposite. Most consumer goods manufactured within the matrix of the democratic welfare state undergo a downward equalization over time. Because the masses lack connoisseurship, they are incapable of discerning the difference between authentic quality and flashy, superficial features designed for display.
In truth, for the vast majority of consumer commodities, the initial product launch stands as the “masterpiece”; as the timeline progresses, the design and features become increasingly cluttered and superficial, while fundamental, breakthrough innovation vanishes. The problem is that the price is still not coming down, despite that. Meanwhile, the nominal price hikes endlessly, riding the waves of inflation.
Consider a phenomenon observed universally across the global food and beverage industry: dishes have become over-stimulated and hyper-flavored, yet they are overwhelmingly saturated with homogenized, mass-manufactured tastes. Chefs no longer endure the grueling timelines required to extract authentic, high-quality bone broths, master original culinary techniques, or source pristine ingredients. Instead, they operate by mixing and matching dozens of pre-fabricated doughs, sauces, and patties sourced from institutional suppliers like Sysco. Every veteran acknowledges this degeneration.
The realm of audio equipment mirrors this decline. As music delivery systems migrated from vacuum tubes and vinyl to cassette tapes and digital streams, convenience skyrocketed. Live, acoustic music—once the exclusive privilege of high priests and aristocrats—can now be streamed inside a restroom.
Yet, this democratic convenience has not elevated the emotional depth or fidelity of the listening experience. In fact, the essence of the sound has deteriorated. Digital audio systems slice soundwaves up to 44,100 times per second to convert them into digital packets; in this translation process, under the scientific justification of “the limits of human hearing,” they amputate subtle, ultra-high frequencies and the rich, organic harmonics native to analog audio.
Consequently, the sound waves morph into something rigid, sterile, and dry; the ambient atmosphere of the room and the spatial depth of the live performance evaporate. Conversely, in a analog system, the sound wave remains unbroken, flowing as a seamless, velvety curve. The invisible vibrations of the room, the texture of the physical space—everything is etched into the medium. It is why true audiophiles possessing genuine acoustic connoisseurship willingly dump fortunes into analog listening setups.
Look at hip-hop culture. A boom-bap beat, characterized by heavy low-ends and a deep rhythmic pocket, loses its expansive spatial presence when played through cheap consumer gear like smartphone speakers; these low-end consumer devices are incapable of extracting that heavy sub-bass foundation. The intense, compact density native to East Coast rap style is thoroughly castrated, degrading into nothing more than a “boring, flat narration.”
Consequently, modern hip-hop producers saturate their tracks with 808 bass, layering the mix with EDM sounds and high-frequency noise to stimulate the listener’s primal nerve endings. Rappers follow suit, omitting narrative lyricism in favor of low-quality, slurred “Mumble rap,” relying on visual performances to masquerade their output as “fine art.”
The automotive industry follows the exact same trajectory. Tesla, for instance, is essentially a smartphone slapped onto four wheels. It captivates the masses with dazzling tech features, massive digital displays, and autonomous driving software. Yet, automotive purists criticize its mechanical foundation—the chassis engineering, suspension tuning, door panel alignment, and cabin noise isolation—as inferior to the legendary Japanese masterpieces manufactured by Toyota thirty years ago in the 1990s. This is not my isolated, eccentric critique; it is a limitation validated by automotive engineers who possess the connoisseurship to see through the hype.
The conclusion is singular: if you are an honest producer who lacks the Machiavellian marketing sleight of hand required to go all-in on selling, you must migrate your operations to markets insulated from mass pressure—the underground economies where true connoisseurs and purists operate.
If you choose not to take that path, you must dive headfirst into the mass consumer market and go all-in on “Marketing” (Selling). And to forge our skills as elite sellers, our objective is to dissect what the modern democratic citizen is on a phenomenological level, gaining a understanding of the raw desires they harbor.
3. On the Arrogance of the Progressive Democratic Citizen
(1) Is the Ancient Conception of Eternal Return Truly a Historical Regression?
Ancient humans strove to return degenerated time back to the pristine dawn of creation by replicating the exemplary gestures demonstrated by their gods. To the modern democratic citizen, this behavior looks like a dogmatic, backwards-looking regression—an archaic obstacle blocking the march of free, creative human progress.
Eliade rejects this progressive diagnosis out of hand. He asserts that the ancients did not mindlessly reject progress; rather, they understood that authentic, substantial creation is possible only through ritual repetition of the sacred archetype.
Left-leaning academics who defile this ancient behavior as “illiberal” likely do so out of an desire to reject any authoritarian institutionalization of a system. However, the mechanical repetition of an exemplary archetype does not inherently accelerate dogmatism.
Consider how early mainstream Christianity became dogmatic during its ideological wars with the Gnostics, forcefully executing unlogical decrees as mandatory articles of faith. Dogmatism escalates when an environment produces anomalies that can no longer be interpreted through the dominant framework; this vacuum forces heresies to emerge and challenge the orthodox throne, triggering a dogmatic counter-reaction from the establishment. Therefore, to the ancients themselves, the temporal framework of the Eternal Return was neither dogmatic nor regressive. It appears that way only in retrospect, viewed from the deeply arrogant standpoint of a linear conception of time that successfully managed to dismantle it.
Indeed, the trajectory of scientific advancement via Paradigm Shifts, as mapped out by Thomas Kuhn, mirrors this exact track. Mainstream scientific establishments display dogmatism when the dominant paradigm faces a crisis and anomalies begin to proliferate.
We witness the identical dynamic within Chinese Confucianism. During the early Western Zhou dynasty (circa 1046 BCE), the foundational texts of the I Ching (Book of Changes) established a closed loop of eternal return. However, as the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods dragged on, the landscape was overwhelmed by historical catastrophes and irreversible human suffering that this simple, cyclical framework could no longer interpret.
To resolve and rationalize this irreversible historical trauma, Confucianism later introduced moralistic, fundamentalist interpretive frameworks into history, such as the Xici Zhuan (Commentary on the Appended Phrases). Once Confucianism was officially adopted as the state ideology during the Han dynasty, intellectual war erupted between purists who demanded a return to the original text, and institutionalized court scholars who interpreted reality exclusively through the lens of the Xici Zhuan.
Thus, from a logical standpoint, it is unjust for modern progressives to look back at the past, crown themselves as the “triumphant winners of history,” and dismiss ancient frameworks as dogmatic or regressive.
This forces a fundamental question to the surface: is it truly a bad thing to reject linear progress and rigidly replicate the exemplary gestures bequeathed by ancestors and gods? If progress is an unconditional, objective good, why is the everyday life of the modern individual plagued by an unprecedented intensity of existential dread, alienation, and psychological illness compared to eras when reality was simple, flat, and absolute?
The moment one temporarily steps down from their mindless faith in progress, a monumental truth comes into focus: the act of eternally returning to the primordial origin to dwell in the presence of the divine gifted humanity with an ontologically secure sense of the “Real.” It handed a finite, biological organism a concrete methodology to transcend the terror of chronological time, promising literal immortality.
Conversely, living within an irreversible straight line of time under the dictates of the progressives—forcefully waiting for a hypothetical, future manifestation of God (Theophany) to deliver salvation—does nothing but manufacture a vacuum of meaning within the human psyche. It leaves the individual existentially naked and volatile.
This vacuum is the precise reason early Christianity took the radical step of introducing the historic Incarnation of Jesus, alongside the concepts of the Last Judgment and the Apocalypse—it was an attempt to reset and sacralize the entire linear timeline in a single blow. Therefore, to unlock the branding secrets required to sell their commodities to the masses at a premium, modern producers must learn how to fill this “vacuum of meaning” that was once managed by gods and priests.
Eliade himself harbored skepticism regarding whether the modern masses, indoctrinated by progressive historicism, could ever evolve into free, creative individuals. He feared that the masses lack the capacity to actively construct history, noting a trend where history is increasingly engineered by a microscopic elite:
“The proud freedom of modern man to make history is a illusion for the near-totality of the human race. Faced with a history engineered by a tiny elite, the modern individual has no choice but to either opt for suicide, endure exile, or escape into a sub-human mode of existence.”
— The Myth of the Eternal Return, Mircea Eliade
(2) Why Progressive Time (Historicism) Triggers Deep Alienation and Existential Anxiety
The Judeo-Christian tradition was the initial civilization to adopt a linear historical timeline. However, they did not do so with the malicious intent of triggering human alienation or anxiety. The Hebrew prophets utilized this straight line to rationalize their historical trauma; they believed that the pristine primordial state and the ultimate salvation of the nation of Israel would materialize in the future, allowing them to look toward the apocalypse with optimism.
However, as the Christ-following movement institutionalized into a centralized, imperial Church cartel, the underlying theology underwent a radical mutation. To expand their institutional footprint and cement their terrestrial governance, the Church hierarchy shifted its emphasis heavily toward framing Jesus as an undeniable, historical fact.
Bishops such as Irenaeus and Tertullian championed this historical interpretation, branding Docetism—the theology asserting that Jesus’s physical body was merely a divine illusion—as a dangerous heresy. This was the exact historical moment the seed was planted: the notion that history is fixed and moving along an unalterable, predestined track.
By the time modern historicists like Hegel, Marx, and Sartre stepped onto the intellectual stage, this seed had blossomed into a full-scale philosophy: the decree that history marches forward according to immutable laws of progress. These thinkers blindly sacralized progress itself.
Yet, paradoxically, this historicist triumph drove human alienation and psychological anxiety to an unprecedented fever pitch. If history is moving forward along an absolute track independent of my personal existence, my life is stripped of any justification for being. As these three intellectual factions shouted from the rooftops, commanding the masses to “Wake up and join the march of progress,” the archaic human need to return to the primordial origin grew simultaneously as a mirror image.
Across his entire body of work, Eliade concentrates his critique heavily on Hegel and Marx, leaving Sartre unmentioned. However, I choose to focus on Jean-Paul Sartre. Given that Sartre wielded heavyweight status within the global intellectual arena, his philosophical defection and subsequent alignment with Marxism corrupted modern democracy.
Ultimately, his thought served as the moral foundation required to construct the very infrastructure that threatens the livelihood of modern independent producers today: predatory taxation, highly asymmetric labor policies, and choking regulatory frameworks.
4. The Ideological Foundations of the Progressive Democratic Citizen: Hegel, Marx, and Sartre
(1) The Genesis of Historicism: G.W.F. Hegel
If one were to summarize Hegel’s philosophy in a single phrase, it would be this:
“When we recognize that things are necessarily as they are—that is, that they are not the result of arbitrariness or mere chance—we simultaneously recognize that things ought to be as they are.”
To strip this of its academic density: why did government bond yields suddenly skyrocket today? Hegel asserts that the immediate phenomena manifesting before our eyes are never random accidents. There is always an underlying, inevitable structure that dictates they must unfold precisely that way. Consequently, if a human can comprehend the colossal, grinding gears of history, they will experience a awakening: “Ah, this was entirely bound to happen.” Through this realization, they learn to accept reality.
To Hegel, every historical event was stepping through a dialectical structure of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, converging toward the liberation of Absolute Reason. The raw tragedies, suffering, and alienation generated along this timeline were transformed into necessary fuel required to propel a grander flavor of progress.
However, as Hegel’s philosophy consolidated its grip among the cultural elite, the suffering of ordinary individuals only intensified. While existential agony remained a reality on the ground, the remedy offered by historicism was: “History dictates it must be so, what are you going to do about it? Step aside and bow down to the march of progress.”
Why did this distortion occur between Hegel’s macro-structural theories and the micro-realities of individual existence?
It is because as the trajectory of conceptual thought anchors itself in structural necessity and lawful progress, the operational homology in which individual humans can actively participate evaporates. Historically, ancient humans enjoyed a sense of the “Real” by replicating the gestures of their gods, mirroring the architecture of sacred spaces, and returning to the dawn of creation. They felt structurally unified with the divine. Homology was both the epistemology and the practical methodology through which an individual absorbed the order of the heavens.
Viewed through the lens of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, the bodily execution of these homologous, archaic reenactments was the only method to gain entry into the world of the divine. To embody sacredness, copying the physical gesture of a god driving a stake into a serpent’s skull under identical environmental conditions is infinitely faster than mindlessly reading scripture. By embedding the architecture of the cosmos into one’s physical flesh through homology, a human could be saturated with being.
Hegel’s historicist idealism, however, leaves zero room for a mortal human to replicate a supreme existence. To comprehend the laws of history, what can an individual actually do besides scanning the daily newspapers? If that is our reality, how can we—as Dasein (Being-there) rooted in the world—clash with physical objects, interpret tangible suffering, or creatively engineer meaning from the phenomena around us? This brand of historicist progress erases both the sense of the “Real” and true “Freedom” from our everyday lives.
(2) Karl Marx: The Man Who Promised the Masses Painless Progress
The framework engineered by Karl Marx is more absurd and fraudulent than Hegel’s, yet it is intoxicatingly sweet. He inherited Hegel’s linear conception of time and dialectical idealism, flipping it on its head to manufacture historical materialism. He decreed that capitalism within the material world evolves along an absolute, inevitable track of progress, independent of human volition.
This is the exact reason an array of intellectuals attack Marxism as a secular religion—the opium of the masses. Marx assured the working class that they could arrive at a material paradise via the laws of history without enduring a shred of personal risk or existential suffering.
According to Marx, once productive forces reach their absolute zenith, mass unemployment naturally materializes, vaporizing the consumption capacity of the entire social architecture. Thus, the capitalist framework automatically collapses under its own structural weight. The masses simply need to occupy the factories, produce according to their ability, and consume according to their need.
In 2026, this is 100% identical to the absolute nonsense peddled by contemporary universal basic income advocates who demand that we levy taxes on AI and robotics to fund state distributions. If such a predatory system were ever codified, what producer would voluntarily economize their capital, shoulder the permanent threat of bankruptcy, and commit to long-term reinvestment into advanced AI and infrastructure? In a society where capital accumulation grinds to a halt and marginal productivity converges to zero, from what magical hat do these distributable profits supposedly materialize?
The fatal pivot occurs when Marx treats his personal utopian fantasy as a deductive law of nature, subsequently justifying systematic plunder and physical violence against producers as a progressive necessity. Because the wheel of history is predestined, yet the bourgeoisie—who control the printing presses and drink the sweet nectar of power—will never voluntarily abdicate their thrones, Marx concludes there is no path forward except to smash through this elite oppression via physical revolution (Counter-Violence).
The masses, seduced by this Marxist propaganda, weaponized the “laws of history” as a moral shield to legitimize the plunder of production assets and the destruction of private property rights. Predictably, this psychological shortcut triggered a degeneration of the public’s spiritual fortitude. Arriving at a material paradise without enduring a fraction of personal sacrifice was an illusion that even the late medieval Church never dared to peddle. After all, those corrupt priests at least demanded a tangible sacrifice of opportunity cost, commanding their flock to “render actual cash to purchase an indulgence.”
Ultimately, Marx’s rhetoric allowed the masses to navigate the terror of a linear timeline marching toward death, while simultaneously indulging in a frenzy as they dismantled the bourgeoisie. This phenomenon is homologous to the ancient Greek cults of Dionysus. To escape the oppressive, rational order of the state, those zealots engaged in collective orgies and violence, returning to a formless state of primordial chaos to experience the liberating illusion of becoming gods.
Look at modern society: observe the masses banding together, wielding iron pipes, and unleashing violence to legally plunder the hard-earned profits of producers. The way they paint their crusades—cloaked in the vocabulary of “human rights” and “the right to survival”—in blood, while risking literal death, is identical to a Dionysian frenzy.
Therefore, Eliade’s diagnosis of Marxism stands as a truth: it is a modern, secular heresy—a toxic mutation where the apocalyptic structures of ancient eschatology and the messianism of Judeo-Christianity collide in their absolute worst form.
(3) Jean-Paul Sartre: Hypocrisy, Defection, and the Corruption of Modern Democracy
The ultimate destination of modern historicism—the godfather who handed the democratic welfare state a moral club to enforce its predatory resource distribution—is Jean-Paul Sartre. Sartre was the figure who steered his existential philosophy to make Marxism its definitive home. He incited intellectuals to engage in irresponsible, hyper-politicized activism (Engagement). The academic inspired by his gospel, alongside the disciples they trained, have captured government bureaucracies and universities, executing regulations and plundering independent producers.
[Existence Precedes Essence]
The axiom defining Sartre’s early philosophy, articulated in Being and Nothingness (1943), is that existence precedes essence. He posited that unlike an object like a chair or a knife, a human being is not manufactured with a predetermined blueprint or functional utility. A human is an entity hurled into the universe in a state of absolute nothingness.
Consequently, the singular mandate governing a human life is to decipher: “Who am I, and what choices will I execute to manufacture meaning for my existence?” This is a journey that cannot be bypassed via a mere birthright or a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) entitlement. It demands a brutal, unremitting Proof-of-Work (PoW) on the ground. The individual who flees from this isolation, seeking comfort within established institutions to lounge in passive complacency, ceases to exist in any real sense.
Viewed from this early standpoint, history possesses no predetermined destination, nor does it obey grand laws of progress. The trajectory of human life is sketched by a sequence of contingencies born from the collision of free human choices and actions. Up to this juncture, his thought stood as a hardboiled survival philosophy for the sovereign individual.
However, as Merleau-Ponty exposed, Sartre’s early philosophy harbored an idealistic, irresponsible arrogance. An individual is never hurled into the universe as a pristine, immaculate slate of nothingness. History, culture, tradition, and language accumulate over generations, settling into human biology and everyday life like dense sediment. There is a temporal narrative that flows independent of individual volition.
In reality, the individual desperately scratches to connect with the resistances of the world; it is when they are alienated from this friction that they experience existential trauma and anxiety. To put it plainly: the entrepreneur who stands in the thick of the market, navigating volatile customers, manufacturing physical commodities, and hustling with reality, has zero luxury to sit around contemplating the “essence of life.” They are already living in an eternal present.
The luxury of agonizing over one’s existential essence belongs to the boredom of the detached intellectual, who has retreated from the raw arena of survival to contemplate the cosmos from the safety of an armchair. Authentic reality can never be mined within an idealized consciousness that divorces itself from the material world. Only the visceral, sovereign struggle to defeat the terror of death and secure survival grants a human a true sense of the “Real.”
[The Contradiction Realized in POW camp]
In 1940, Sartre was captured by Nazi forces and thrown into a prisoner-of-warm camp. Confined within a space where his physical liberty was stripped to a minimum, he paradoxically intoxicated himself with a sense of intellectual omnipotence: “They may cage my flesh, but they cannot conquer my consciousness or my freedom to choose.” He concluded that humanity is condemned to be free because we must choose at every intersection whether to harbor hope or surrender to despair—a magnificent yet cursed fate where responsibility anchors squarely on the individual.
Yet, his experience living shoulder-to-shoulder with the masses inside that prison camp infected his psyche with a bizarre, hypocritical contradiction. Through the gaze of the German guards and his fellow captives, Sartre extracted a cynical realization: “The other objectifies me,” and “Hell is other people.”
Yet, this remained a purely academic monologue detached from reality. On the ground, Sartre derived his personal comfort, his faith in a progressive timeline of history, and sense of liberation from collective solidarity with his fellow Frenchmen. He experienced a powerful surge of euphoria and a sense of moral entitlement as an intellectual while orchestrating a Christmas play designed to comfort and communicate with the population.
However, a human being’s sense of presence—the conviction of being alive within the matrix of the world—is a radically solitary phenomenon. The collective can never serve as the foundation for that presence. As the cultural theorist René Girard demonstrated, the modern masses do not harbor autonomous desires; they are engineered to mimetically mirror and copy the desires of others. This is the exact reason the modern individual faces a haunting, unquenchable emptiness, no matter how they consume commodities or engage in collective solidarity. The world of the Other can never underwrite your personal presence. No one can hand you a blueprint detailing the essence of your life or dictate how you must navigate reality. As the Austrian School of economics demonstrated, the meaning and utility derived from objects are invariably subjective and intrinsic to the individual.
Therefore, leaning emotionally on the collective is comfortable and addictive like a narcotic, but it has nothing to do with mining the essence of life as an independent agent. No matter how one plasters over this void with the rhetoric of “collective intelligence” or “the laws of historic progress,” if the friction does not contact your naked flesh—if you cannot alter the immediate world you inhabit with your own two hands—it remains an illusion. It is impossible to awaken to your existential essence through a collective banquet prepared by someone else.
Sartre ultimately failed to realize that the essence of life is not a collaborative exercise achieved by linking arms with the masses. It is a grueling, solitary spiritual campaign that an individual must wage on their own. To achieve this, one must possess a fierce, uncompromising desire to exist independent of the pressures and pain inflicted by the outside world.
This hunger is not born of arithmetic or logic. It erupts from a primal terror of dying as a meaningless cipher alienated from the world—and a sovereign will to drive a sacred, unshakeable monument (Axis mundi) directly into the center of the terrain one claims.
Sartre proved incapable of enduring the “cursed yet free destiny” he preached; he buckled and fled from it. Instead, he staged a escape into the euphoria of blind solidarity, sentimental pandering, and the realization of a Marxist utopia. This hypocritical baseline manifested as a philosophical irony: he preached existentialism on paper while coddling Marxism; he defended collectivist dictators like Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong on the political stage, while demonizing and attacking the American and French regimes—the very structures that had secured his liberation and guaranteed his freedom of expression.
(4) Sartre’s Capitulation to Marxism
The political party Jean-Paul Sartre co-founded in 1947, the Revolutionary Democratic Rally (RDR), collapsed in just two short years. Sartre was blindsided by a cold reality: without the institutional machinery and propaganda apparatus of the French Communist Party, he as an intellectual could alter nothing in the world. Contrary to his bloated ego, coddled since youth as a premier genius intellectual, the structural walls of the establishment were prohibitively high. Unable to endure the weight of his own impotence and isolation, Sartre fell to his knees before Marxism. Addicted to the drug of solidarity (engagement) he had once experienced among his peers, he crawled right back into the collectivist swamp.
As established prior, existentialism—which decrees that “man is radically free”—and Marxism—which posits that “history progresses according to unalterable laws, leaving the individual powerless to change anything”—are metaphysically in irreconcilable contradiction. To mask his intellectual bankruptcy and forcefully stitch these two structural contradictions together, Sartre hastily fabricated a sequence of bizarre concepts in his late massive work, Critique of Dialectical Reason (1960). The definitive was the concept of the “Practico-Inert” (le pratico-inerte).
The Practico-Inert describes a phenomenon where the material objects or institutional systems engineered by human intention solidify over time into an “inertia,” turning around to subjugate and imprison human liberty. For example, humans originally constructed a sprawling subway network with intention of moving rapidly and conveniently. Today, however, millions of workers are imprisoned by the inertia of train timetables and transit routes every single morning, forcefully cramming their physical bodies into overcrowded carriages, their individual liberty micro-managed by the system. Sartre argued that the free choices of individuals striving to live well manufactured social institutions and capitalist architectures, only for these creations to harden into a colossal inertia that backfires upon humanity to shackle them.
Consequently, he arrived at the absurd conclusion that to smash through the chains of the Practico-Inert, the masses must engage in class warfare. Therefore, individuals must temporarily shelf their personal freedom and merge their destinies with the grand linear march of Communist history. Becoming imprisoned within his own sophistry, Sartre deliberately closed his eyes when Joseph Stalin’s regime massacred millions of citizens and exiled them to the Gulags, dismissing the atrocities as “the unavoidable price that must be rendered for historic progress.” This was the absolute zenith of his intellectual hypocrisy.
The logical flaw in Sartre’s thesis lies in his total failure to distinguish the physical inertia of matter from the structural inertia of human institutions. Because he blindly swallowed the Marxist materialist dogma that institutions operate exclusively through the medium of matter, he believed that the physical inertia of objects underwrites the permanence of an institution. This is the simplistic view that law and bureaucracy are sustained solely because they are etched onto material foundations like paper documents, legal codes, computer servers, or courthouse brick and mortar.
If that were true, his theory fails to explain a question: why do human societies construct diverse institutional frameworks while utilizing identical material inputs? Sartre’s worldview castrates the free, creative capacity of the human mind. An institution is a “domain of symbols and signs” that exists through mutually agreed-upon historical trust, customs, and accumulated human experiences; it remains independent of the physical state of matter.
Sartre engineered this bizarre logic—claiming that the external force oppressing human liberty originates from the “inertia of matter”—solely to reverse-engineer a justification for the predetermined historical necessity of Marxism. Yet, the physical inertia of matter never absorbs the actions or intentions of laborers or consumers. Rather, Matter absorbs the intentions of the capitalist. If the physical architecture built by a capitalist fails to generate subjective utility for the market, the capitalist absorbs 100% of the loss; if it generates utility, they reap a profit.
The laborer and the consumer utilize that material architecture (the subway, the factory)—built exclusively at the risk of the capitalist—to extract far more utility than they ever could working with their bare hands in a state of nature. They are exploiting the inertia of that capital. If they happen to dislike the framework, they are entirely free to walk away.
Therefore, as long as the inertia of matter is generating a profit in the open market, it stands as an absolute blessing for the producer, the laborer, and the consumer alike; there is zero structural oppression within that matrix. Through the inertia of that capital, every participant enjoys an elevated flavor of utility—a utility they could never have mined across a lifetime without that infrastructure. If the architecture failed to deliver this utility, the market would have tossed it into the dumpster of history long ago.
What truly suffocates and oppresses individual liberty is neither matter nor institutional architecture, but the fake equity claimed by the Other. The real engine of oppression that triggers an existential “Nausea” (La Nausée) within the sovereign individual is the sight of the Other demanding unearned rights and an equal 1/N redistribution of resources, simply because they exist within the system—without ever sacrificing a single drop of opportunity cost, or bearing a fraction of the risk (responsibility).
Therefore, it was not the gaze of the Nazi guards that stripped Sartre of his liberty inside that prison camp. He lost his freedom because an occupying force weaponized a fake stake—manifested through weaponry—to plunder the wealth of France and shackle human bodies, while evading the legitimate responsibility of governance and human accountability.
Consequently, even within a democratic welfare state, if its constituents weaponize their 1/N democratic stake to plunder the hard-earned profits of producers and demand unearned rights, while dodging personal responsibility or skin in the game, it stands as a tyrannical violation of sovereign liberty.
[The Collision Between Sartre’s Philosophy and the Producer Class]
After Second World War, Sartre was elevated beyond a national hero, reigning as the godfather of left-leaning Western democracy. During the French civil unrest of May 1968, he marched into the streets, distributing pamphlets to students and delivering speeches that electrified the emotions of the masses.
- “All power to the imagination!” (L’imagination au pouvoir)
- “It is forbidden to forbid!” (Il est interdit d’interdire)
These aestheticized slogans set the hearts of a younger generation ablaze. When the Soviet Communist Party spiraled into totalitarianism, Sartre stepped up to criticize them, shouting: “Adopt Marxism, but never sacrifice individual personality and absolute liberty!” This grand narrative was more than enough to send the Western democratization generation into a frenzy of adoration.
As this exact narrative crossed the Atlantic and nested inside the American psyche, it formed the definitive bedrock of modern left-leaning democracy, weaving economic egalitarianism, identity politics, and anti-war activism into a unified dogma. However, while Sartre himself spent his remaining years frantically pacing within the contradictions of his own philosophy, the clever masses cherry-picked his thought to suit their appetites. The resulting product was the most wretched, grotesque dogma dominating 21st-century democracy: The illusion of Painless Progress coupled with Freedom without Responsibility.
- Historic progress achieved exclusively by crushing the establishment via class warfare (Marxism) → Rebranded as an unconditional welfare entitlement the state owes to the masses.
- Liberty mined exclusively through agonizing personal responsibility, pain, and skin in the game (Existentialism) → Rebranded as a natural human right individuals are entitled to enjoy simply by being born.
This is a logically shattered illusion. Never in the arena of human history has painless progress or irresponsible freedom been distributed for free—let alone distributed equally to all. One man’s free lunch is invariably the stolen product of another man’s blood-soaked Proof-of-Work.
Sartre’s academic decree—framing the private property and business infrastructure built by a risk-bearing individual as an “oppressive structural matter (the Practico-Inert)”—was nothing short of an intellectual hate crime. The moment this perspective is codified, the act of a producer bearing the permanent risk of personal bankruptcy to generate real wealth and print employment opportunities is stripped of its value; instead, it is degraded into the source of inequality sabotaging the linear march of progress. Sartre simply took Karl Marx’s campaign of hatred against the bourgeoisie and packaged it in sophisticated, elegant vocabulary.
Yet, within the academic establishment, launching an assault against a titan revered as the definitive social conscience of the era was a form of professional suicide. The singular, heroic voice of resistance belonged to the liberal philosopher Raymond Aron, who launched a devastating critique in his masterwork The Opium of the Intellectuals (1955), declaring: “Marxism is the opium of the intellectuals.” Aron exposed the hypocrisy of Sartre, demanding to know what brand of logic allowed a man to froth at the mouth over minor flaws within French capitalism, while actively defending the massacres of Stalin’s regime and the communist aggression of North Korea and the Soviet Union during the Korean War.
Tragically, the contemporary intellectual elite, while knowing well that Aron’s critique was unassailable, uttered a phrase: “We would rather be wrong with Sartre than right with Aron” (Il vaut mieux avoir tort avec Sartre que raison avec Aron). Intoxicated by the moral superiority delivered by collective solidarity, they chose to execute a bank run on objective facts.
Riding this colossal wave of hypocrisy, common-sense discourse—commanding individuals to work honestly, manage their personal risks, and maximize their productivity—was demonized as a fascistic assault on human rights designed to inflict pain on the working class. Consequently, the governments of advanced Western empires, including France and the United States, went all-in on the populist business of manufacturing “painless progress and irresponsible freedom” on the ground.
The robust, republican resistance mounted by President Charles de Gaulle to halt this rot was broken and contained by 1969. Today’s politicians chant Sartre’s narrative of “historic progress and protecting the vulnerable” like a magic incantation purely to harvest votes, plundering the pockets of the independent producers who create real value, alongside future generations who do not even possess a vote yet.
Sartre passed away in 1980. If he were to rise from his grave today to witness the contemporary landscape of Western democracy—saturated with chronic inflation and populism—one wonders what expression would cross his face. He would be forced to confront a haunting irony: his crusade to liberate the masses has transformed into the Practico-Inert itself—a monstrous system that annihilates the producer class while steering civilization straight into a abyss of debt-driven ruin.
5. Conclusion: The Producer Who Rules the Vacuum of Meaning
Across this treatise, we have traced how the sense of the “Real” underwritten by the ancient framework of the Eternal Return was dismantled, and how the linear view of time that rushed to occupy the void (Judeo-Christianity, Historicism, Democracy) degraded modern citizens into fragile, predatory ciphers.
The trajectory of modern historicism—stretching from Hegel through Marx and culminating in Sartre—peddled a colossal Ponzi scheme to the masses: the promise of Painless Progress and Freedom without Responsibility. Consequently, the modern democratic welfare state has surrendered to the high-time-preference pressures of the electorate. It has mutated into a monolithic Practico-Inert that routinely debases its currency, vandalizes the rule of law, and legally plunders the future earnings of subsequent generations and the current producer class.
From a management standpoint, this civilizational degradation has triggered a downward equalization of consumer goods. Mass-manufactured food stripped of authentic flavor, digital audio packages stripped of rich acoustic harmonics, trap beats engineered solely to stimulate nerve endings, and smartphone electronic vehicles stripped of mechanical integrity—these are the monuments of civilizational decay born from an extreme present-preference and the death of connoisseurship.
Surrounded by a civilization on the verge of structural liquidation, the independent producers who shoulder real risks to engineer authentic value must execute an immediate, cold calculation for survival. Two operational tracks exist:
(1) Migration to the Underground Economies of High Connoisseurship
The first pathway demands that you migrate your operations away from mass market, establishing your presence within the underground economies governed by a microscopic elite of true connoisseurs. You must construct an Sanctuary tailored for sovereign individuals who are prepared to render price premiums and hard money in exchange for craftsmanship and quality.
(2) Domination of the Mass Market via the Mastery of Hype
The second pathway dictates that if you choose to remain within the arena of the mass consumer market, you must cease attempting to educate the masses on the mechanical performance or intrinsic quality of your commodity. To do so is a waste of capital. Instead, you must weaponize your branding to exploit the existential anxiety and vacuum of meaning modern democratic citizens suffer under a linear timeline.
Just as the high priests of the ancient world utilized festivals and rituals to gift the masses with a sensation of the “Real,” the modern producer must step up as a sorcerer. You must deploy advanced storytelling and Hype as a modern secular ritual, curing the existential deficits of the masses while selling your commodities to them at a premium. I will dissect and update the execution scripts for this methodology across subsequent articles.
(3) Epilogue
Complaining about the state apparatus on paper or staging intellectual crusades demanding a return to a hard money standard alters nothing on the ground. For a producer to secure their survival, they must possess an understanding of what the democratic citizen is, how they were structurally engineered, and what deficits they harbor. While our previous treatise analyzed the brain of the democratic citizen through a spatial lens, this article has dissected it through a temporal lens.
To escape the nausea triggered by the fake stakes and irresponsible demands of the 1/N collective, a producer must dominate the desires of the modern democratic citizen. The democratic welfare state harbors absolute zero interest in protecting the rights of a producer class stripped of political sovereignty. Your life and your capital belong to you alone. If you do not actively defend your own throat, no one else will step up to shield it.
6. Related Series
- The Digital Executioner of Small Business Owner: Profitizing “Sanctified Evil” in the Age of Mob Rule
- AI and the Death of the Labor Theory of Value in the Welfare State, and the Return of Producer Sovereignty
- The Commonality Between Left-Anarchism and Ethereum: Why Ethereum Can’t Be an Alternative for the Sovereign Individual
- The Death of the Producer: Why Democracy Needs You to Stay Small (Preface)
- How Democracy Plunders the Productive Class (The Collapse of American Republicanism)
- A Geopolitical Autopsy of the Welfare State (U.S, U.K, France, Korea)
- From Craftsmanship to Captivity — How the Democratic Caste System Traps the Producer
- A “Rigged Democracy” Happy for All, Save for the Growth-Oriented Entrepreneur (Beyond James C. Scott’s “Legibility”)
- Making vs. Selling: The Solo Producer’s Exit from the Democratic Millstone
- The Arch-Enemy of the Market: The “Legislature” Butchers Producer Sovereignty
- Slaughtering the Moral Titans: Why Rawls, Sandel, and Piketty are the Enemies of Personal Sovereignty
- The Fall of Truth: A 200-Year History of Capitalism as the Engineered ‘Enemy of Democracy’
- Why Low-Quality Products Flood the Markets of Democratic Welfare States
- The Welfare State is the Prime Culprit of Demographic Collapse: Why Birth Rates Thrive in Untaxed, Unregulated Informal Economies
- [The Democratic Citizen’s Brain 1] The Market Landscape Hidden by the Democratic Welfare State: Why We Must Abandon ‘Making’ and Sell ‘Romance’
If you enjoyed this article, you can support the project – thank you!