This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
How it felt playing with plastic army men as a kid.
Fortissax is Typing
He’s right but there’s more context. https://x.com/christianheiens/status/1934279182822842689
It’s not just liberalism’s internal contradictions, the fact that humans are social animals, or that no man is an island. It’s also that equality does not, never has, and never will, exist. It’s also that the socio-economic class that gave birth to liberalism barely exists anymore.
The West’s warrior-aristocrat class was wiped out by the First World War, and the bourgeois middle class was ball and chained by the rise of the managerial class. These credentialed managers emerged to deal with booming populations, rapid technological change, and the growing complexity of mass society. Managerialism is itself illiberal. This process of massification put technical experts, not workers or the bourgeoisie, in control of production.
James Burnham laid this out in The Managerial Revolution (1941). He argued that capitalism, weakened by the Great Depression, gave way to a new managerial order. Executives, bureaucrats, HR, engineers, and other technical experts replaced the bourgeoisie, who had once driven liberalism through their hold on free markets.
This managerial class thrives in mass society, where complexity demands centralization over entrepreneurial freedom. The First World War erased a pre-liberal elite built around honour and duty. Without them, liberalism lost its cultural anchor. Burnham tied this collapse of the old ruling classes to liberalism’s growing instability.
Samuel Francis took this further in Leviathan and Its Enemies (2016). He argued that the managerial class didn’t just sideline the bourgeoisie, it built a system hostile to liberalism’s ideals. Merchants and professionals became shackled by endless regulations and dominated by corporate giants. Francis linked this to the managerial push for homogeneity and control. Massification centralizes power, eroding liberal values like local autonomy and individual initiative.
But the dominance of the managerial class may not last. AI threatens to undermine the foundations of their power. Managers, analysts, and administrators built their authority on specialized knowledge, the knowledge economy, credentialed expertise, and the ability to process complexity. AI now does this faster, cheaper, and often better. Tasks once reserved for highly trained professionals, legal analysis, medical diagnostics, logistics, even policy planning, are increasingly handled by machines. If AI can coordinate systems, manage data, and make decisions without human oversight, the rationale for a bloated managerial class starts to collapse.
Their role as gatekeepers of complexity becomes obsolete. Just as they once displaced the bourgeoisie, they may now be displaced by the tools they helped usher in. And unlike the warrior-aristocrats or the bourgeois middle class, they may leave behind no legacy at all, just a vacuum waiting to be filled, by us.
The West’s warrior-aristocrat class was wiped out by the First World War, and the bourgeois middle class was ball and chained by the rise of the managerial class. These credentialed managers emerged to deal with booming populations, rapid technological change, and the growing complexity of mass society. Managerialism is itself illiberal. This process of massification put technical experts, not workers or the bourgeoisie, in control of production.
James Burnham laid this out in The Managerial Revolution (1941). He argued that capitalism, weakened by the Great Depression, gave way to a new managerial order. Executives, bureaucrats, HR, engineers, and other technical experts replaced the bourgeoisie, who had once driven liberalism through their hold on free markets.
This managerial class thrives in mass society, where complexity demands centralization over entrepreneurial freedom. The First World War erased a pre-liberal elite built around honour and duty. Without them, liberalism lost its cultural anchor. Burnham tied this collapse of the old ruling classes to liberalism’s growing instability.
Samuel Francis took this further in Leviathan and Its Enemies (2016). He argued that the managerial class didn’t just sideline the bourgeoisie, it built a system hostile to liberalism’s ideals. Merchants and professionals became shackled by endless regulations and dominated by corporate giants. Francis linked this to the managerial push for homogeneity and control. Massification centralizes power, eroding liberal values like local autonomy and individual initiative.
But the dominance of the managerial class may not last. AI threatens to undermine the foundations of their power. Managers, analysts, and administrators built their authority on specialized knowledge, the knowledge economy, credentialed expertise, and the ability to process complexity. AI now does this faster, cheaper, and often better. Tasks once reserved for highly trained professionals, legal analysis, medical diagnostics, logistics, even policy planning, are increasingly handled by machines. If AI can coordinate systems, manage data, and make decisions without human oversight, the rationale for a bloated managerial class starts to collapse.
Their role as gatekeepers of complexity becomes obsolete. Just as they once displaced the bourgeoisie, they may now be displaced by the tools they helped usher in. And unlike the warrior-aristocrats or the bourgeois middle class, they may leave behind no legacy at all, just a vacuum waiting to be filled, by us.
The key thing here is not letting autistic, totalitarian tech nerds win the future, and they will, if not tethered in service to the common good. That requires nationalists using technology, like AI as a tool.
No, Hitler was not a better leader than Napoleon, Augustus, Charlemagne or even Bismarck.
https://x.com/fortysacks/status/1934472563779940850
https://x.com/fortysacks/status/1934472563779940850
The cult of Leon Degrelle has always seemed odd to me. He abandoned the Belgian fascist party to rebrand as a collaborator when Germany invaded, losing the support of Belgian nationalists and fascists. The NSDAP refused to let him establish a collaborationist government (because they wanted to assimilate the Belgians), so he ran off to join an organisation—the SS—that had branded him and his people as inferior and not sufficiently Aryan to be full members (by which they meant Germanic). That policy only changed out of necessity when Germany began losing the war.
Some of the first Belgian resistance fighters came from the old fascist movement, as they had wanted a partnership with the Germans—not to see their distinct ethnocultural identity assimilated into a greater Germany.
Degrelle essentially abandoned his people and was never truly a nationalist. Charles de Gaulle and Philippe Pétain, by contrast, shared many of fascism’s criticisms of the liberal Third Republic, viewing it as a decadent failure and desiring a return to traditional values and nationalism. But unlike Degrelle, they each refused—in their own way—to reduce France to a mere racial and ethnic appendage of a greater Germany. De Gaulle did so by leading the resistance from abroad, and Pétain sought to preserve as much sovereignty as realistically possible under occupation.
https://x.com/fortysacks/status/1934481239756398643
Some of the first Belgian resistance fighters came from the old fascist movement, as they had wanted a partnership with the Germans—not to see their distinct ethnocultural identity assimilated into a greater Germany.
Degrelle essentially abandoned his people and was never truly a nationalist. Charles de Gaulle and Philippe Pétain, by contrast, shared many of fascism’s criticisms of the liberal Third Republic, viewing it as a decadent failure and desiring a return to traditional values and nationalism. But unlike Degrelle, they each refused—in their own way—to reduce France to a mere racial and ethnic appendage of a greater Germany. De Gaulle did so by leading the resistance from abroad, and Pétain sought to preserve as much sovereignty as realistically possible under occupation.
https://x.com/fortysacks/status/1934481239756398643
“But he fought the USSR”—yes, after Germany signed a non-aggression pact in the Molotov–Ribbentrop agreement. Everyone was against the USSR until Hitler did that, and nobody trusted him when he broke it and attacked them, to prevent a communist invasion of Western Europe.
How many times do I have to teach you this lesson old man
https://x.com/_kruptos/status/1934940904944521308
https://x.com/_kruptos/status/1934940904944521308
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, says Canadians should be able to kill home invaders in self defence.
Do you agree?
Do you agree?