Okay, I’ll bite. You’re well read, so I think you’ll recall that James Burnham wrote The Managerial Revolution in 1941. To recap, he was describing a process already underway in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and increasingly the United States through FDR's New Deal, and the liberal democratic capitalist world. He explained how the growing technological and organizational complexity of industrial civilization was producing an entirely new ruling class. The Industrial Revolution, driven by the liberal bourgeoisie, had unleashed unprecedented economic development, scientific advances, population growth, and urbanization, all requiring increasingly sophisticated political and administrative institutions to manage millions of people across Western civilization. Preserving local institutions and traditional forms of authority became increasingly difficult when competing nation states were mobilizing millions through mass politics, mass media, and mass society. George Orwell, despite disagreeing with Burnham’s predictions and his belief in the inevitability of managerial rule, recognized the general tendencies he had identified. The terrifying powers of modern technology were enabling unprecedented centralization, reducing human beings to faceless, nameless subjects of enormous bureaucratic institutions. This extended beyond government into healthcare, academia, and the corporate world, all dominated by credentialed managers exercising effective control over the immense capital, wealth, and power once directed by the owner operators and liberal bourgeoisie. The proletariat remained subordinate, while the traditional owners were displaced by professional administrators, executives, technicians, and bureaucrats. Samuel Francis completed Leviathan and Its Enemies in 1995, building on Burnham and explaining how the managerial regime had consolidated itself throughout American society. He identified the managerial class as a ruling elite entrenched across government, corporations, universities, media, and other mass organizations, with liberal ideology serving to legitimize its power. Francis argued that challenging this regime required the development of a new counterelite capable of displacing its existing rulers. By then, the same managerial transformation had spread throughout much of the American Empire and its vassals. Similar transformations occurred in France, where de Gaulle established the Fifth Republic around a powerful executive and the enormous administrative machinery of the centralized, unitary French state. In France’s case, these managers were actually patriotic, alongside commercial elites who benefited from a distinctly French nationalism intended to preserve as much independence from the American Empire as possible, at least until Mitterrand and the subsequent neoliberal turn. De Gaulle consolidated the national police, helped establish the postwar social security system, strengthened the professional administrative elite, and pursued state planning and industrial development, including the early development of high speed rail. In our neck of the woods, here in Canada, it was Mackenzie King, C. D. Howe, Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson, and Pierre Trudeau who transformed the country through these same processes. They utilized and expanded Ottawa’s wartime bureaucracy to construct a managerial state, increasingly subordinating the independent political influence of the old commercial bourgeoisie in Montréal and Toronto to federal institutions, while incorporating much of that same bourgeoisie into the new managerial order. They expanded federal regulation, centralized economic administration, and strengthened Ottawa’s control over national infrastructure and communications. The CBC, established under Mackenzie King in 1936, became a major instrument of national cultural consolidation, disseminating a unitary Canadian narrative and countering American cultural influence. Québec underwent its own managerial revolution, particularly during the Quiet Revolution under Jean Lesage and nationalists like René Lévesque. The provincial state assumed responsibilities previously exercised by the Catholic Church, expanded its bureaucracy, centralized education, healthcare, and social services, and established powerful economic institutions like the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the Québec Pension Plan, and the Société générale de financement. The nationalization of electricity under Hydro Québec was another huge consolidation of economic power. Much of this was undertaken explicitly to protect the French Canadian people, strengthen their economic position, and wrest control of their own society from the old commercial establishment. Québec nationalists recognized the power of the modern administrative state and used it to construct institutions capable of serving their own national interests. My point is that all of this happened before either of us was born. The premanagerial world is dead. A significant part of the old political order was already destroyed following the French and American revolutions, as increasingly centralized and bureaucratic states developed across Britain, France, Spain, and elsewhere. The German and Japanese Empires was something of an exception, where the old aristocracy retained its political and military supremacy alongside an increasingly powerful industrial and commercial bourgeoisie, producing what I consider a holistic synthesis of tradition and technology. I’d also add that a shared, federal Canadian identity was already articulated by the Fathers of Confederation in the 1860s and developed throughout the early Dominion along the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes corridor, the bilingual regions of Québec and eastern Ontario, the Ottawa Valley, and parts of the Maritimes, especially New Brunswick. Montréal, then Canada’s commercial and financial metropolis, embodied an earlier expression of this composite national identity. Its original coat of arms, adopted in 1833, represented the city’s French, English, Scottish, and Irish populations through the fleur de lys, rose, thistle, and shamrock. This same idea of Canada’s four founding European peoples was expressed in the Royal Arms of Canada, granted in 1921 and incorporated into the Canadian Red Ensign. Montréal’s familiar flag, adopted in 1939, gave this older heraldic tradition its modern form. I'd argue that Canadian national identity developed through the continental expansion of this Laurentian political, commercial, and cultural core, extending across the Dominion even as its ethnocultural composition became increasingly distinct the farther one travelled from the Québec to Windsor corridor. You’re a true reactionary at heart. I recognize that, and I don’t mean it as a pejorative. But my question is, what’s your alternative? This is how modern states developed, and this is how they operate. The left is blind to the problems of managerialism because liberal and socialist movements were among the first to exploit its institutions to impose their vision of society. I take the Archeofuturist position that although the present power structure is far from ideal, we’re better off grabbing the bull by the horns and steering it in our direction. Because if we don’t, the left will, or worse, our geopolitical enemies. Trying to dismantle the managerial system in a world dominated by managerial states and empires strikes me as incredibly naive. The enormous administrative, economic, technological, and organizational powers of the modern state are indispensable to national survival, when every competing power possesses them. In Canada’s case, the survival of the Canadian polity itself depends on maintaining those powers of technocratic centralization. Without them Ottawa would lack the institutional capacity to hold together an enormous geographically dispersed federation as you said, resist American absorption, and maintain a national existence.

You've drawn exactly the wrong lesson from the cave, my friend, so let's walk through it together. Recall Book VII. The prisoner who escapes doesn't earn the right to stay in the sunlight. Plato sends him back down. His duty isn't to lecture about the fire. It's to lead. And Plato is candid about why lecturing fails. The man who returns, his eyes still adjusting to the dark, is laughed at first, and the prisoners would kill him if they could. Not because they're wicked, but because the human mind is fragile, and seeing the whole machine at once would break almost anyone. So they keep the comfortable story, and they resent whoever tries to take it from them. This is the foundational lesson of political philosophy, worked out twenty-four centuries ago. I confess I'm a little surprised to find you making a mistake Plato wrote down before the birth of Christ. The mouse doesn't study the trap. It wants the cheese. Most people want security, a family, a home and a decent life. That isn't a flaw in them. It's the foundation every lasting political order has been built on. Any politics worth having starts by serving it, not by scolding people for skipping the theory. Political science settled this decades ago. In 1964 Philip Converse found that only a few percent of voters think in anything like a coherent ideology. Paul Lazarsfeld's election studies in the 1940s showed that most people don't form their views from arguments at all. They take them from a handful of opinion leaders they already trust. That two-step flow is how elections are actually decided. So I'll concede the point: this debate is abstract. To the average person watching, it looks like two wizards firing wands at each other in a mock duel. Entertaining, maybe. Decisive, never. The people who move a nation are the ones who earn that trust and carry the ideas to everyone else. Ever wonder why the biggest accounts online are rarely the most thoughtful ones? Simple memes travel the farthest. Careful arguments get scrolled past. I see it with my own work. My long-form essays on Substack reach a fraction of the people who see the short summary on X. That isn't a complaint. It's the terrain. And the problem runs deeper than attention spans. Hand complex ideas to people without the judgment to sort true from false, and they don't come out wiser. They connect the dots crudely and hallucinate whole worldviews. That's how you get QAnon on one side and Elbows Up on the other. Simple messages, amplified and stitched together, become ideological viruses, and whoever controls the amplification holds the power. If you're serious about power, that's the ground you have to fight on. Instead, you come down from the mountain with your tablets and wonder why nobody stops to read them. A theory doesn't win just because it's true. No one is going to stand up, applaud and say, "Why didn't we see this before?" There's an irony here. Your whole approach rests on liberalism's favourite assumption: that every citizen is a rational philosopher in waiting who reasons his way to his politics. That's the blank slate. I find it genuinely funny that your argument only works if there's no genetic variance in intelligence, as if no two individuals were born with different gifts. As someone opposed to liberalism, you should know better. I didn't know you were a lib. As for "propagandist," it's a word people save for the other side. When their own side does it, they call it evangelizing. The word itself comes from the Vatican's Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, founded in 1622 to spread the Gospel. So yes, I will always preach the gospel of Canadian nationalism. What exactly is the problem? And notice what you did there. You didn't refute anything I said. You named the shape of it and hoped that would be enough. Calling something propaganda to avoid engaging with it is itself a propaganda technique. It's name-calling, the oldest device in the book, and it's the genetic fallacy dressed up as insight. If my argument is wrong, show me where. Pointing at its persuasiveness isn't a rebuttal. It's a confession that you don't have one. Yes, the nation-state is a technology. So is every institution humans have ever built. These things are abstractions, synthetic and replaceable, which is exactly why they can be stepping stones to something better. Refusing a tool because someone else misused it isn't principle. It's paralysis. Organic identity isn't the opposite of nationhood either. The Canadiens and the Loyalists were organic communities who built a country through generations of brutal winters. Nobody handed them that identity through a television. A nation is what local bonds become when they endure. The nihilism you describe comes from the mass market and managerial liberalism, not from belonging to something larger. The blackpill isn't the cure for that nihilism. It's another symptom of it. Now let me drop the courtesy. You want sovereignty for your community. You want carve-outs. You want power. But you won't do the one thing power demands which is to build a coalition capible of capturing and weilding power for your interests. Unless you speak for the whole tribe, you work with others. Everyone who has ever won understood that. You don't. You think explaining the mousetrap makes you immune to it. It doesn't. You can't stop the trap, and you won't play the game that could. So here's my question. Is your grand theory of power just an excuse, written in advance, for never showing up? Because that's what it looks like from here. There are people in Canadian nationalism who would make room for your community. You don't have to agree with every definition. You just have to stop attacking your fellow travellers in public. But commentary is easier than commitment, so you counter-signal instead. You're not above the game. You're sitting in the stands jeering at the players and thinking that makes you part of the team. Heckling isn't strategy. It's entertainment, and you're the one providing it. You say fighting for Canadian identity means "I am for the system." No. It means I'm for the people the system forgot. You're for a theory. Canadian Nationalists are for a people. Still, thank you. I was due for some long-form content anyway, and you handed me a better topic than I could have picked myself today. It’s been fun trading spells. But duels like this have an audience, and people do form opinions watching them. I’m not worried about what they conclude about me. This is exactly what I’ve always stood for. You might want to think about what they conclude about you. The serious work ahead will need sharp minds, and there’s room for one like yours. But it also needs people who can be trusted. Every time you turn your wand on your own side, you tell the people doing that work you’re not one of them. In politics the squeaky wheel doesn’t get the grease. It gets replaced with a cheaper, more reliable one. If you’ve ever wondered why politics is full of mediocre people, that’s why. Movements will take a reliable mediocrity over a brilliant saboteur every time. Don’t make yourself the cautionary tale.

I think bottom line is that sovereignty (with all its technology) trumps identity. If you can't make the case why Canadian sovereignty is best served by more or less maintaining culture/ demographics then you're lost. Those who love Canadians should ask what sovereignty needs

you need to do the readings xitter.cf/UCCavalier/status/2019…

This whole "there is no core Canadian identity" is a false propaganda narrative designed to poison the well of Canadian nationalism

Do nothing and DEFINITELY lose or actually try for a chance to save our country. The choice is yours.

Purdue University's IDEAS Lab built an autonomous drone that tracks runners through dense forests completely without GPS or cloud networks. By running 3D LiDAR mapping and obstacle-avoidance AI entirely on-chip, it can weave under tree canopies and predict target movement through blind spots in real time. Massive implications for next-gen search & rescue and edge AI.

Cleveland 'pastor' Lydia Ford of LifeWorks Church announces to her congregation that her co-pastor/prophet husband has taken a SECOND WIFE and they are now living in a POLYGAMOUS relationship. 🚨