The Pete Quiñones Show - ***Throwback** The Straight Line From 'The Enlightenment' To 'Drag Queen Story Hour' w/ Auron MacIntyre

Episode Date: January 22, 2025

69 MinutesSFWAuron joined Pete to give his detailed opinion as to how "The Enlightenment" has led to the governments we have today and the perversions they promote.Auron's Find My Frens PagePete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

Ready for huge savings, we'll mark your calendars from November 28th to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items, all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. You catch them in the corner of your eye, distinctive by design. They move you, even before you drive.

The new Cooper plugin hybrid range. For Mentor, Leon, and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services, Arland Limited, subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply.

Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite LIDLIDL items all reduced to clear. From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 30th of November. Liddle, more to value. Welcome back to the Pekino show. I am here with Orrin McIntyre. How are you doing, Orrin? Doing great. Thanks for having me again. Well, last time you were on, it was to Freeman and Beyond the Wall podcast, and a couple changes have been made and some new people listening in. So why don't you tell everybody a little bit about what you do? Sure. My main thing is YouTube. I have a YouTube channel, though I've also got an Odyssey and a Rumble channel.

And the main focus is a kind of political theory. I go over a bunch of different stuff. I'll do the news of the day sometimes or what's going on. But my main focus is kind of looking at political theory and using to analyze different situations that are going on today. And then I also do a decent amount on Twitter and Gab and other stuff. So everyone could check that out if they're that out if they're interested. Excellent. All right.

So on Twitter the other day, a lot of people were talking about all these videos come out that are just like absolute insanity. You hear all these stories about just what seems like Weimar, Germany level perversion. And somebody was asking, why is this happening? And how do we get here and everything? And a common trope in like NRX circles, near R. reaction circles is while the enlightenment was a mistake. And I was trying to give my explanation of that to somebody. And they were like, well, we really like to hear more. They weren't completely dismissing it. They legitimately wanted to hear more, but 280 characters is 280 characters. And the last time you were on,

I asked you, I said, what do you think is like the hallmark of make somebody a neo-reactionary? And your response was that they question the Enlightenment. So why don't you talk a little bit? Can you like describe what you think the Enlightenment was, what how it came up, what kind of moment it was? Sure. I mean, we, you know, for us now, the Enlightenment is an origin story, right? It's kind of the origin story of modern civilization. And the story that we kind of like to tell ourselves about the Enlightenment is that through most of human history, people were ruled by superstition and emotions.

They were close-minded. They just kind of went with this kind of caveman-esque power and anger and tribalism. And then somewhere in, you know, the 16-1700s, we devised. this miracle of science. And science allowed us to kind of enter into the modern age of mankind. And we became more rational, more reasonable. We stopped believing in these ancient myths. We started becoming more in control of our emotions and systematizing things.

And by taking this process of science and taking kind of the wondrous things that it had done in medicine and physics, and all these other things, we could take that same process of kind of scientific thought and apply it to the social as well. We could create social sciences, and we could apply it to things like, you know, I mean, philosophy had always been around to some extent, but we started seeing a more systematic attack of things like philosophy,

sociology, psychology, and of course the big one that we talk about with the Enlightenment and government is, of course, political science. We start applying a scientific rationale to governing. And the idea is that if we can kind of take, get rid of the medieval aspects of it, right? Men had been ruled by those who had been put in power by God and the church had had a huge say in their lives. And if we could kind of remove that, you know, those deities, those that men,

metaphysical idea and we could ground our governance in the more rational age, then we would produce better results. And that's, I think, kind of the origin that most people think of when they think of the Enlightenment. You know, we see the death of the old monarch or emperor or, you know, sultan or whatever and we move into the age of the republic democracy liberalism and all of this stuff of course coincides with big scientific discoveries they coincide with the industrial revolution and so it's very easy to tell us the story tell ourselves the story of both scientific and moral progress right we're not just more enlightened people when it comes to our ability to cure disease, but those things also came along with the ability to kind of properly manage our society and set it up in ways that

we're going to benefit everyone, and we're going to be more enlightened about our understanding of others and our ability to live together and advance in morals. And so I think that is for most people what the enlightenment means. Now, obviously, for academics, for historians, This has different connotations, but I think in general, when you're talking to the average person, that's kind of the general impression they have of what the Enlightenment is and what it brought us. What is your opinion on the Enlightenment? That sounds like the Wikipedia version of the Enlightenment. So what is your version? Well, I mean, in many ways, obviously advancement in science did come, right? And so that's the part that's undeniable. And the part that I think in many ways, obviously, advancement in science did come, right? And so that that's the part that I think in many ways, ways covers over than some of the other things that happened in the Enlightenment. Because if you want to look at the Enlightenment, there are plenty of people who are pretty happy about it. There's, of course, a

general move towards this. There's a general celebration of what's going on. But there are also some pretty severe critics. And if you want to look at two really good contemporary critics of the Enlightenment, I would say that Joseph Demaestra and Thomas Carre, are probably two of your best sources because they're both writing very close to the source. They're either during the Enlightenment or kind of right as it's transitioning in, we're really transitioning into liberalism politically and kind of this broader understanding. And unlike some of the people like Burke, right? Most people who talk about the French Revolution in a negative way,

and believe it or not, it's still up in the air. for a lot of people as to whether or not the French Revolution was a negative. But a lot of people who talk about the French Revolution in a negative way will look at someone like Burke and say he's the best critic of the French Revolution. It's not that there's nothing valuable in Burke, but at the end of the day, Burke is still a liberal. Burke is not comfortable with where liberalism went. He's kind of your first conservative, right? And this is where a lot of conservatives trace themselves to Berkian, you know, Berkian, conservatives. They still see themselves in the liberal tradition, but they think it went too fast,

it went too far, it broke too much too quickly, people weren't ready for it. And so a lot of people will turn to Burke. But if you really want to see people who are cutting to the quick, they're attacking the basis for these kind of changes in governance and morality, I think guys like DeMester and Carlisle are very valuable because I don't think they're, I don't think they're on board with what's happening. It's not a matter of, oh, we did this too quickly, or, you know, I don't like some of the acts that were taken, but I understand the general move in the direction. These are very, these are very serious attacks on the core ideas of kind of the enlightenment and liberalism and the idea that we are making political and moral advancements during this time.

Can you point out a couple of Carlisle's points about why he looked upon it as a negative? Sure, yeah. I think you'll find in both Demaster and Carlisle. Demaster, a little more because he's a more Orthodox Catholic as where Carlisle has a more of a unique relationship with Christianity. but both men are very concerned about the secularization of society. Both see that as a very serious problem. And they think that the secularization of society is going to leave people without a guiding light. That people, especially you can look at guys like Demaster,

they're dunking on people like Rousseau saying you think you can just build society out of nothing. You can just a priori, you know, design a constitution, design a people. But that's not how these things work. You know, the people are endowed by their creator, not with inalienable rights in their understanding, but with characters, certain characteristics, certain nations, certain peoples, they have a particular way of being. And those things work themselves out through their political institutions and constitutions. and it's not something you can build from the ground up. And Carlisle attacks many different things. He attacks the Industrial Revolution.

He attacks the democracy. And he does this because he feels like we're cheapening what man is and where man's purposes is going to come from. He looks at the things that are necessary for Industrial Revolution, and he makes some critiques that in some ways might say. sound Marxian to some people, that people are going to be removed from the value of their work, that we're killing the craftsman in order to obtain efficiency at doing something lesser. And because we're training the average person to produce a product that they have no attachment to

and to transition from a craftsman to a mere laborer, this is going to denigrate the average person. This is going to remove them from the value of their work, and it's going to degrade them morally. He also says that because we are in this mindset, we enter into what he calls like beaverism, which is basically just working just to work. And he's not against work. This is a guy with a pretty Protestant work ethic. He is pretty clear that he thinks work is essential, and that if you're not working, you're not being a valuable human. But he feels like by trying to make everything more efficient and more alienated, we are becoming more animalistic.

We're simply working because it's instinctual to generate the things we need, rather than elevating ourselves through mastering skill and becoming the kind of person that can wield those skills in a way that betters ourselves in society. He also says that the attempts to rule through kind of this industrialization, this general attitude of industrialization leads us to a type of leadership where we're simply turning people in, and he, of course, didn't have this kind of verbiage at the time, but turning people into numbers on spreadsheets. He has this kind of beautiful phrase. He calls the Condition of England question. And he says, you know, this is not something you can quantify with numbers. This is not something you can put into an almanac or into a ledger. You know, you can't simply add up the GDP or, you know, the productive value of an individual

or a business or a country and determine its health. There's more to what a country is than simply its material output or its efficiency. And then, of course, when it comes to democracy, Carlisle was very much not a fan. Carlyle was such not a fan that he was angry at the monarchy in England at the time for basically just being a shill for parliament. He said basically we've robbed ourselves of a monarch, and instead all we have is someone who basically rubber stamps what the parliament does. And the parliament is, again, ruling in theory in the name of the people,

but is often pursuing simply the interests of, you know, of this new industrial class. Maybe the precursor of what we would call a managerial elite today. And he opines for kind of this aristocracy that used to exist that wanted to be holistic, cared about the entire good of the people, and saw itself as kind of the caretakers and cultivators of the good of those that were under them rather than people who are simply trying to basically reduce the people into widgets and cogs in a machine that can more efficiently produce material and increase the numbers so that, you know, we could see better spreadsheets, better ledgers. And so he says, you know, this condition of

England has to be something that we understand as a spiritual good, as a heroic good, as something that is beyond simply the measure of, you know, how the average person is living, though he points out that that itself has not really increased that much when you look at, you know, how people live in the cities as compared to how they used to live prior to the industrialization. So that's just an overview, of course. Carlyle is very dense. You have to read him, at least I have to read him slowly and many times. to kind of pull what you get out of him. And you probably didn't get it all, even the second or third time anyway.

So it's someone that takes, I think, a good amount of time, but is well worth your investment for kind of what he brings to the table. We're in the 19th century, and I want to go back to the 18th for a second. I think a lot of people would, no matter what your opinion is on the American Revolution, the... You catch them in the corner of your eye. distinctive by design they move you even before you drive the new cupra plug-in hybrid range for mentor leon and terramar now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro search

cupra and discover our latest offers cupra design that moves finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from vows wagon financial services arland limited subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Ready for huge savings? We'll mark your calendars from November 28 to 30th because the Liddle Newbridge Warehouse Sale is back. We're talking thousands of your favourite Liddle items, all reduced to clear.

From home essentials to seasonal must-habs, when the doors open, the deals go fast. Come see for yourself. The Liddle New Bridge Warehouse Sale, 28th to 3rd. 30th of November, little more to value. Majority of people believe that it was a good thing. I think that one of the problems that you would meet when you're talking about the Enlightenment is there are a lot of people who say the Enlightenment inspired the American Revolution, but if you tell them that it also inspired 1789, you know, the French Revolution, they won't be

able to get that. Can you put those two together how the Enlightenment would have been responsible for both? Sure. I mean, in both cases, we're looking at a, I guess it's how you want to trace that lineage, right? There are a lot of people who will trace it through Protestantism, and I don't want to get into that because that's a whole other, that's a whole other discussion, not all of which that I agree with. I guess I'll start by saying this. A lot of people who have a problem with the Enlightenment have a problem with the American Revolution, mainly because they say the king was the rightful authority over the Americans, and they didn't have the right to rebel.

I have a slightly different tact, and it might be wrong, but it's mine, and so I'll say it before we go any further with that. I think the American Revolution is, I don't want to say good or bad, because it's a past event and what do we have a say on it. But I would say that it's justified, not necessarily from its enlightenment basis, which is surely what the founders at that time did, right? They just took large chunks of lock and used it to justify their separation from England. But I think they lost it because the king kind of lost the mandate of heaven over his empire.

It was not being ruled properly. The empire had frankly grown too large and so often as with any tower of Babel was bound to collapse when the provinces were governed poorly. So I have less of a problem with the American Revolution than many kind of reactionaries, I guess, because I think that that's kind of the natural cycle of far-flung provinces that are poorly governed. but the American Revolution most certainly was founded in Enlightenment ideas, though it definitely had a more measured understanding. It was certainly more Lockean than it was Russoian. And both of them were working from what we would call the Enlightenment tradition. But Locke still had what I would say is a fair amount of Christianity in it. And a lot of the, and I think this also goes to the kind of people who came to America.

They were mostly Protestants fleeing and they were there because they wanted to practice their sometimes rather, you know, kind of kooky versions of Christianity for some of the real radicals. But they were all there because they wanted to be Christian more, not less, as where when you look at the French Revolution, and of course for so, they're looking to throw off the authority of the church entirely. Both were looking to escape the Catholic Church, but Americans were looking to escape into Protestantism. The French were looking to escape into basically atheism, right? They crowned, they literally crowned the God of Reason in Notre Dame Cathedral. And so if you're looking for why they could both come from the same root of enlightenment, but in up in pretty different places, I think the answer tends to be who was rebelling the foundation

of kind of where they're starting part of their liberalism and where they wanted to end up. I think that while they both started from the idea of this liberal tradition of throwing off monarchy, having popular sovereignty, generating constitutional republics, they were looking for very different results, even though they were, they kind of had the same starting goal. When you look into the 1800s, what do you see as, I mean, you already talked about the Industrial Revolution and how Carlisle talked about it. Politically, what kind of movements did you see in the 1800s that were popping up that looked to be inspired by the Enlightenment?

Yeah, and here's where I don't want to, I don't want to build myself as someone I'm not. I'm not, I have a decent grasp of history, but I'm not a historian. And I don't have like an encyclopedic knowledge of the 1800s. And so while I've read a good bit of political philosophy from the era and tracing it through, I don't want to pretend like I have a general or have a specific understanding of all the different political movements that were moving us forward. But from what I have read from people of that era, it seemed that the mandates were shifting away from the idea of kind of more absolute monarchies and, of course, towards parliamentary monarchies. And at this point, as he got

to the late 1800s, early 1900s, basically perfunctory monarchies where you catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive by design, they move you even before you drive. The new Cooper plug-in hybrid range for Mentor, Leon, and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2,000 euro, search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Cooper. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria. Terms and conditions apply.

Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. Discover five-star luxury at Trump Dunebeg. Unwind in our luxurious spa. Savour sumptuous farm-fresh dining. Relax in our exquisite accommodations. Step outside and be captivated by the wild Atlantic surroundings. Your five-star getaway, where every detail is designed with you in mind.

Give the gift of a unique experience this Christmas with vouchers from Trump-Dunbeg. Search Trump-Ireland gift vouchers. Trump on Dunbiog, Kush Farage. The monarch had little to no power, and it was almost all in the power of the parliaments. And if you look at guys like Mosca, who were really... writing about this transition, they said that, again, a lot of this comes from your industrial revolution. The fact that your merchant class is on the rise, right? Your kind of your aristocracy is losing power. Your merchant class is gaining power. The new money is moving into these

parliaments, and it's kind of demanding more and more political rights from the monarch. And so your power is being drained out of the monarchy into the parliaments. And the parliaments are less aristocratic and more mercantile. And it's because the Industrial Revolution is allowing them to create basis of wealth that had not existed. And this is an ongoing process, right? This has been happening for hundreds of years. The merchants have been gaining more ability as the ability to increase trade and production

have come from better sailing technology, different trading technologies and then of course mass production it leapfrogs this process and so you're seeing you're seeing people who basically our our leadership had been warlords more or less right kings were originally basically warlords and their aristocrats their their their lieutenants had been ruling over sections of their land and so your aristocracy was was fundamentally the martial cast. And of course, the church assisted them kind of in that ruling. But as the enlightenment came and the need for specific martial training drained away because you started produce weapons that the average person could wield, once you, you know, this is this is famously

why the Pope tried to outlaw the crossbow, right? You know about this with the Pope? Yeah, I do. Yeah. So, you know, the increase in martial technology was reducing the need to have a specific martial class because you could take the average person and turn them into a relatively effective soldier. And so you no longer needed to train people and have them earn their, you know, be able to, you know, create their own armor and spend lots of time learning how to fight. Instead, you could just shove a crossbow and then a musket into the hand of the average person. And they could mow down the guy who had spent his entire life learning how to fight from the back of a horse. And so the ability of merchants to acquire wealth and gain status without needing to have martial prowess, again, entirely shifted the dynamic of these politics. And it allowed for these more nationalistic movements, of course, to also take hold because you no longer had the,

need for kings and kingdoms, people started emerging more as nation states rather than being a people who are under the protection of a particular monarch. And so all of these things work together to shift the attitude away from the more medieval understanding of society towards something we would recognize as kind of that post-enlightment society today. Why are monarchies so denigrated? You pretty much can ask anyone. And even people who, you know, read political theory now they may, you know, people read the political theory normally that confirms their bias. But was this something that just had to happen in order to institute democracy and enlightenment values liberally?

It's certainly part of it. Again, I think it's hard to separate. And this is always, you know, we're always in danger of one lens. And so I think it's important to kind of take the totality of what's happening there. Democracy and liberalism are absolutely part of it. But again, the economic system is changing and the scale of things are changing, not just economically, but governmentally. The mass state is on the rise. And you can read a bunch of guys like James Burnham and Sam Francis on this kind of thing. The ability of, you know, the sovereign to basically govern large amounts of people had to increase. And that meant we need a different story. A lot of people assume that, you know, the king just got to order everybody around. And in some ways that's true. He had more direct and obvious power than we see today. But the king was only one man and he was asking from many. And when the king wanted something, it was often seen as something for the king, not for the nation. And so when the Industrial Revolution came and we needed kind of mass production and we needed the mass state,

in order to justify the mass state and the things that the mass state required, we needed a new story about kind of where power came from. And so this is where the mass mandate becomes very useful. Because you might be able to say, we're not doing this for the king. But it's very hard to say that we're not doing this for the nation and for the people. You're part of the people, right? How can you turn down the will of the entire people? And so the will of the people became a very useful tool. And this is why we see in many ways the rise of democracy also coincide with mass mobilization of militaries, right? Total warfare. We see the Leveon mass in France.

And we see every nation basically start to realize that they're in an arms race for power, right? If France can bring, you know, forget, you know, 20, 30, 40,000 people. If France can bring an entire nation of men to bear arms at any time. And we now have these arms that can be mass produced and they can turn your average man into an effective killing machine. Then the ability of a society to compel its entire population to fight becomes very important. Suddenly drafts and compulsive military service become pretty much an essential part of the state. And how do you justify that? Well, it can be difficult with a king, but we find that democracy.

are far better at compelling those things. So why did you denigrate the monarchy? Well, I mean, there are a lot of reasons. Of course, many monarchies had grown decadent. Many monarchies had grown inefficient. Again, many monarchies had proven that they could not govern empires of the size that they had cultivated. Some of that is, again, just due to the, you know, the degradation of that particular monarchy. But again, a lot of it was due to the massification of the state. the need for the mass state to come to power and the military and production that all of that required. So again, I think part of it is just a founding story.

It's a narrative we tell ourselves. Well, you know, we freed ourselves from monarchies. We freed ourselves from the shackles. We became these more enlightened people. We're no longer relying on the divine right of kings. We're now looking at the rational discourse and the marketplace of ideas where the people choose their leaders. That's all part of the story too. But of course, I think there's also those economic and cultural engines that are required to kind of move things towards the total state that we

saw take place during those times. It does seem like the marketplace of ideas that, just that phrase, one that's just to get personal for a second, is I cannot stand. It's just just horrible. What if the marketplace gives you, you know, Marxism, you know, gives you the Bolsheviks? I mean, is that something you just take? It does seem that the whole idea of the marketplace of ideas is easily traced to the Enlightenment, right? Mm-hmm. Yeah. Let me ask you this, because I know you said, you know, I'm not going to assume all the historical knowledge and putting that. But, I'm sure when you look at like the rise of Marxism and up through Bolshevism, 1917, onto Maoism, I'm sure that's easily traced.

Is that a reaction to the Enlightenment or is it directly from the Enlightenment? Well, I mean, there's certainly bits of both in there, right? So it's, you can certainly see the, you know, the going even further with the discarding. of God, right? It's not just that religion is something we need to outgrow, but it's like actively poison, right? It's something that was used to control the masses and we need to discard it. The Enlightenment is also very core to Marxism because Marxism is fundamentally progressive, right? It sees itself as something that can rule the new age, right? It's basically, you know, Marxism, it wants everything to be managed. It is very much a managerial state. It wants to use science and logic and reason to, you know, figure out the exact amount that everybody needs and the exact amount of work and output and all these things. And by making sure that we have effective management at every level of labor and all and distribution and all these things, we will produce kind of the optimum outcome. So it is very much,

tied to the Enlightenment, but it is definitely breaking from liberalism in some pretty fundamental ways. It does acknowledge some of the problems with the Industrial Revolution, some of the effects, though weirdly enough it has a hard time explaining why they're bad. I mean, it doesn't. I mean, Marx goes around making moral statements all the time, but it doesn't really have a good grounding for them, right, and pretty much. Air Grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid. is powering up the Northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area

and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. Have your say online or in person. So together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4 slash northwest. Employers, did you know, you can now reward you and your staff with up to 1,500 euro and gift cards annually,

completely tax-free. And even better, you can spread it over five different occasions. Now's the perfect time to try OptionsCard. OptionsCard is Ireland's brand new multi-choice employee gift card packed with unique features that your staff will love. It's simple to buy,

easy to manage, and best of all, there are no extra fees or hidden catches. Visit OptionsCard.orgheim. Today. All those situations. Again, I'm not going to pretend to be a scholar on Marx. I'm not going to, you know, maybe he, he makes a grand argument that no one has ever shown me. I'm not, I haven't read all of Das Capital.

I don't know all of the Marx. But every time I talk to people, every time I talk to Marxists about this, they always produce quotes that they, to me, that they feel like are going to reveal like the morality of Marxism or his moral basis. And they're always horrific. They're always terrifying. And I just kind of look at them and I wonder, does this sound moral to you? Does this sound like a moral justification and grounding?

Because they just don't have any metaphysics. And so it just often feels hollow in that way. But I think you can certainly say that Marxism is both an outgrowth of the Enlightenment, but also a severe reaction to some of the aspects of the Enlightenment. And again, you can see some of those same criticisms echoed in people like Carlyle, which is why some people will label Carlyle as a socialist. But I think that it's okay to understand that there are problems and issues with kind of our understanding of capitalism and what has happened.

happened while realizing Marxism is not the answer to that problem and realizing that is a road that is incredible evil and dangerous while it may have some relevant critiques towards some of the things that happened. So if we come forward to after World War I, it seems like the managerial kind of aspects that like a Carlisle would talk. about seem to be almost become formalized in the West. And I think that Burnham probably talked about it in best in managerial revolution. But is that what you see? Do you see like the New Deal? Things like that as basically cementing that that we're going to be ruled by a managerial elite now going forward. And you know, you'll have a vote, but will it count? Yeah, I think that this is where Burrower. Burnham is really indispensable, right? I mean, everything about the managerial state isn't perfect. He certainly makes some guesses that end up being wrong. But he has some really powerful insights into, you know, rather than breaking the world into liberalism and fascism and communism, Burnham understands that what's on the rise is managerialism. And what you're getting is three different formulations of managerialism. And one might be better and one might win out over the other but either way the managerial elite is is on the rise and so that's certainly what we're seeing

across the board in in all three of those kind of governmental formulas is that they are all focused on bringing forward more planned economies more more data you know we we if you if you're in the business world or any kind of world like this now you these data driven strategies data driven results, right? Everybody loves that kind of catchphrase. But that's what these are all, all these people are obsessed with, right? They want to bring the scientific method and kind of, and using managerial expertise to kind of squeeze every last little bit out of whatever their system is. And that's the one thing that unifies all of these systems, no matter what their individual differences and on how they're going to implement that, all of them.

are planning to use this strategy, this managerial strategy. And again, Burnham is basically just secularizing a lot of Carlisle's critiques. So it's certainly not a one for one. But I think in many ways, ironically, he's taking a more rationalistic approach to many of those same insights and problems that Carlisle and others had raised in a previous age. Yeah, my friend Aaron and I did a reading of chapter three of managerial revolution, the theory of the permanence of capitalism. We had done that right after we had done a six-part reading of state and revolution by Lenin. And that one really got some people going, talking about unemployment and unemployment being a real factor in looking at the wondering.

whether capitalism even existed at this point. And I think he wrote this in 40. It was released in 41. And yeah, I mean, it really calls into question what people are calling capitalism and what people are actually defending these days. Yeah. And you see Sam Francis really picks up that torch in Leviathan and its enemies, right? He says basically what Burnham was on to was that we transitioned away

from kind of this bourgeoisie capitalism into this managerial capitalism. And they really are very different animals. They are very different structures. While they seem to share some, you know, or they have some similarities. They fundamentally have different motivations. The rich family is very different from the highly educated professional manager. They have different understandings of what their goals are, why they're doing what they're doing, their duties to the people that work for them and for those that they govern, and their relationship with other elites. And so while they both might share characteristics that we would call capitalistic, or they might qualify as capitalists to someone from the outside, they are

pretty fundamentally different systems. And there's a very big break. when you start seeing those managerial elites come to power. And we're really operating under something that is very different than we understood capitalism to be in the late 1800s, early 1900s. How do you understand the difference that people make between a republic and a democracy? That's obviously something that you hear on the conservative right whenever anybody makes. mentions the term democracy. And a lot of people might be able to say, well, you know, we can talk about republics because the Greeks had republics, the Romans had republics. The republics that we're talking about today that we have allegedly, how does that, did that come out of the

Enlightenment or is that a sort of a bastardization of something in the past that you see? So certainly the idea of republics. existed prior to the Enlightenment. When they point to Greece and Rome, you can certainly say that was the case. But they were very fundamentally different in that there was, what's the best way to put this? The idea of the propositional nation is something that is very much a enlightenment or post-enlightenment idea. one of the things that made democracy, if we want to call it that in Athens a thing, was that there's a very small amount of people who could vote in this way, right?

It's men, it's men with blood ties directly to Athens. The idea that someone could move to Athens and, you know, two years later be determining what the government of Athens would do for its people would have struck. the Athenians as absolutely insane, right? They would not have recognized the authority of that part of what made Athenians worthy of voting in government was that literally they had been, you know, that they had the blood and dirt and soil of Athens, you know, kind of in them. That's what gave them the authority to kind of make those decisions. And if you look, if you want to jump forward again to kind of our understanding of the modern republic, even our understanding of the republic has altered

significantly. Like you said, a lot of conservatives love to say, and I did it too. I did it all the time when I was more of a normie conservative. Oh, this isn't a democracy. This is a republic, which is technically true, but is obviously not true de facto, right? Like when the United States started, or at least once we signed the Constitution after the Articles of Confirm, Federation, you could make the argument that you had a republic because basically one half of one third of the government was actually elected by the people, right? And the Senate wasn't elected by the average person. The president was elected by the electoral college.

The judiciary obviously, you know, was not voted on. And so really, you only had the House of Representatives as being anything we would recognize. as some kind of democracy directly. And again, even then, it was a very small, comparative number of people who had the franchise. But just as Rome, as it got older, expanded its franchise, we tended to do the same. And as you move further and you have leaders

who want to expand the franchise more because it allows them to offer more power to outside forces that allows them to come to pay. power over more established forces, you tend to start to see the republic degrade. And the same thing, again, with America. You had, you know, again, Mosca says that America started as a republic, but because we have this idea, basically, when we look at, sorry, I'm trying to trace my history here, when we look at, philosopher, separation of powers, checks and balances. I don't know why I can't remember his name all of a sudden.

Bontescue. When we look at Baron de Montesquieu, who is a big, who's a big inspiration for Madison and the founders who were creating the Constitution, a lot of people think that the great part of kind of his design is just these three branches, right? We have three branches and we separate the power into the branches and they check and balance each other and that's kind of what keeps power under control. But actually, what Moska says is the thing is not so much on the mechanical design.

People get too caught up with the mechanical design. And what they don't understand is what really kept power in control was the different forces in society. Each one of these branches in theory is supposed to be under the monoscue idea, bringing something different to the table. The aristocracy has a different interest than the monarchy. And the monarchy has a different interest than the church. And that has a different interest than a merchant.

And having representatives from each, that's what actually sets power against power. That's what actually brings all of society's different interests together and working together to then create something that's beneficial for the general people. It's not just fundamentally the three different branches. And since America basically decided to just turn every branch more and more democratic, right? We wanted to have more direct votes on so we made the direct election of senators. And then we made it so that the presidential candidates were no longer picked by their party. but we had primaries, and we basically just ratchet up the democratic process and exposed every branch to the same process.

What we got was rather than different competing forces, and that's what really makes a republic kind of work in theory. What we really got was one homogeneous democratic mass selecting leadership at every point. And so you no longer had interest checking interest. You just had one flat democratic impulse. that could be manipulated easily through things like media. And that's why we have more of an oligarchy than we have anything else today. And we certainly don't have anything that really truly resembles a republic.

All right. Let's get to the point where we start to upset people. So I started this off talking about how I was saying on Twitter that when you see Drag Queen Story Hour, or when you see somebody being appointed to the head of, like the head nuclear person in the government who, I mean, I don't even want to say. And when you see what we're seeing in this,

what you wouldn't have seen, what was hidden in the shadows, you know, centuries ago, that this is because of the Enlightenment. And that it, the reason why government would endorse it comes out of the enlightenment. And people are like, well, that doesn't make sense. How would you square that circle?

How would you square a circle like that? So, I mean, it seems very obvious to me from everything you just said, how it comes forward to that. How do you explain it? Well, so in our attempt to secularize. government in our attempt to remove, you know, we remove the divine right of kings and we move the mandate out of the hands of heaven and into the hands of the people, right? And we also then endorse, you know, kind of this science, this scientific type government, this expert-based government. This is always the answer to everything is making things more rational, more objective,

more scientific. And this is where Carl Schmidt is really good. He talks about the problem of liberalism being that basically liberalism promised to remove in many ways politics, right? It said, look, we all disagree on religion. We disagree on who is God. And even when we agree on who is God, we disagree on the Pope or Protestantism or different aspects.

And we go to war about this stuff all the time. So what if we just kind of shoved all that stuff in a broom closet? And we could put the big questions, the big metaphysical questions to the side. And instead... On the many nights of Christmas, the Guinness Storehouse brings to thee Christmas nights at gravity. This Christmas, enjoy a truly unique night out at the Gravity Bar. Savor festive bites from Big Fan Bell, expertly crafted seasonal cocktails, and dance the night away with DJs from Love,

tempo. Brett take infuse, amazing atmosphere, incredible food and drink. My goodness, it's Christmas at the Guinness Storehouse. Book now at giddlestorhouse.com. Get the facts be drinkaware, visit drinkaware.com. Airgrid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid is powering up the northwest. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November. have your say online or in person. So together we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4 slash northwest.

We could just say, okay, here's like the minimum morality we all need. And we could operate on that basis. And that's a pretty good pitch for people who have been fighting religious wars for a long time. And it also works in a lot of advantages when we look at, again, economic situation because people wanted to be able to trade they wanted to be able to facilitate economic advancement and when you don't have to clash over you know metaphysics and existential questions all the time you're more likely to be able to trade and benefit from each other so that all sounds great but the problem is that it we start to then believe as we transition away from rule

of kings and monarchs and aristocracies and mandates from heaven and God, we start to believe instead in systems, right? We believe in the system of democracy or republic, whatever you want to call it. We, in constitutional government, we think that we've constructed a constitution and it's like this beautiful machine, you know, that's been, it takes the, you know, the human nature into account and it balances things and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and it's been engineered in a way where basically we no longer have to place our trust in one person who's been divinely invested with power because, well, instead, we've rationally engineered a system where we can use human nature kind of against itself to create a self-governing system. It just kind of runs like this great Rube Goldberg machine. Once we get it started, it's very complicated, but it works great and it kind of just will go forward in perpetuity.

But the problem with that is it lulls us into this idea of an objective neutral space where no one's values are dominating. And in fact, we even create this idea of separation of church and state, right? Where, and of course, it means something very different to us today than it would have meant to any founder. But the modern conception is basically that you can't use any kind of religious values in the public square. Well, that becomes a real problem as the public square grows, or the government square grows, right? When the government becomes in charge of educating children, when it becomes in charge of deciding what goes on television, when government gets involved in every aspect of people's lives from child custody to business. and at every point, religious values are not allowed to be the basis of decisions. What we are told is that instead there's like this secular, rational, objective, neutral set of

decisions being made. But of course, that's not true. And that's what Schmidt says is liberalism just hides the fact that in the background, someone's values are still operating. Someone is still in control of the system. We never just have this kind of blind watchmaker who sets things and has them run. Instead, there's always someone whose values are being applied to our decisions. And over time, we've started to see who those are, right?

It used to be very difficult, but over time, it's starting to be clear to people that when basically what you've created is this progressive system, right? And all of its values are supposed to be secular. They're all supposed to be non-religious. They don't have a holy book. They're not tied to a church. There's not a lot of official doctrine written down. And so they're supposed to be able to operate in this marketplace of ideas, in this

government space, because they're secular and all the religious ideas are not. And what you're creating is basically like this super predator, right? Curtis Jarvin does a great essay about how Dawkins got poned. And it kind of explains how basically, you know, Richard Dawkins famously hates religion, but he has a religion of his own. And his religion is just kind of this hyper-Protestant, hyper-puritanical progressivism. But progressivism is allowed to dominate all of the public spaces because it's technically not religious in the sense that we understand religion and all the other value structures are.

And so now why do we see all this degeneracy? Why do we see all these people who have really bizarre fetishes and understandings and, you know, they want to change the gender of children? Why do we see drag time story hour everywhere or drag queen's story hour everywhere? Why do we see this? Because that's been the only value system that's been allowed to operate in the public square. We actively pushed all the other value systems out to the side. Sure, you can technically be Christian and whole power. Sure, you could technically, you know, have another religion and be in charge, but you are not allowed to apply those values and the progressives are.

So at every turn, they are the only game in town. They're the only ones who are actually being allowed to exercise their beliefs and apply them. And since there are always beliefs being exercised, there is no such thing as a neutral, a value, neutral, moral neutral space. they are always winning. And that is why that comes slowly but surely from the enlightenment. It doesn't seem inevitable at the start. But when you are removing all other religious influence from the situation, it is the inevitable conclusion. Well, you said that it comes out of liberalism.

And that's if you read, I think my favorite Burnham book is suicide of the West. but if you a lot of people will say well that didn't come from classical liberalism making the distinction of classical at your free markets and you know not modern day liberalism which is who knows what it is mean you have neoliberalism you have whatever all the all these things on the left was how come classical liberalism didn't work well you can see you know these people will deny that that progressivism came from classical liberalism. But if you scratch them just slightly, you scratch your classical liberal,

you'll find a progressive in the making, right? We saw this especially in the last few months. You saw two people who were from kind of this classical liberal school, Douglas Murray and Claire, what's her name? Lema, yeah, from Quillette. They're both people who are in this idea. EW classical liberals fear, right? And in both cases, they went on these huge rants about how basically the right is starting to try

to impose its own values, and they are basically far more worried about the return of the right than the current direction of the left, which is insane, right? Like anyone who looks at what's going on knows that the left is incomplete and total control. They dominate everything culturally and basically legally politically at this point. The right has almost no institutional or cultural power. But still, the arch enemy of every classical liberal is actually the return of the right, right? The right actually thinking that it should start imposing its values. It should start acting in a way that asserts its understanding of morality.

That is the biggest threat to the classical liberal. And that's why, like I said, as these people might argue against wokeness, they might want to keep it the 90s as long as possible. If only we could go back to 1995, it would be the greatest thing in the world. But if at any point you say to them, actually this neutrality never existed and trying to go back to this point of neutrality will only guarantee that we continue down the path of progressivism, they lose their minds. because their greatest enemy is actually at the end of the day, not progressivism. It's the idea that the right might at some point find its courage. That's what they're worried about more than anything. And I think classical liberalism fails because it's just telling itself the same lie,

you know, as liberalism in general, that, oh, the things I believe are neutral. They're objective. They're scientific. I don't have a religion. I don't have a worldview, a viewpoint that, informs all of these things. I can set up a totally rational system by which all decisions can be made and I never have to come in conflict with other people because we can always optimize every outcome for every group and every person. That's the pitch of liberalism, right? Is that

there's this, there's some path that we can all travel down that benefits everyone. And that's a great pitch because it makes everyone put away their sectarian interests. And if you have interest you want to advance, the best thing to do is to explain to your opponents that they don't have interest that they need to advance because then you're the only one playing the game. It's interesting that you say that because the, when people talk about like even right libertarians, right libertarians will say anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, well, if we just get to anarchy, then everyone can go their own way. And it seems like you're basically saying that that is just another version of classical liberalism and just allowing progressivism to thrive.

Yeah, it's always hard when you get into the anarcho libertarians because the anarcho capitalists, because some of them are Hopian and some of them aren't. And one of the things that Hopp understands is very much that no man is an island, right? And that a community needs to police itself morally if it's going to be able to maintain liberty. And so even if you're still operating inside this liberty-based framework, you still need to understand that, sorry, but you're not the only person in life. and this is why so often libertarianism is a philosophy for, you know, 16 to 25-year-old guys because they live in this world where they don't have families yet and they don't have significant attachments to their community

because they've kind of been deracinated and atomized and they don't see. Employers, rewarding your staff? Why choose between a shelf voucher or a spend anywhere card? when with Options Card, you can have both. With Options Card, your team gets the best of both worlds. They can spend with Ireland's favourite retailers or choose a Spend Anywhere card. It's simple to buy and easy to manage.

There are no hidden fees, it's easy to use and totally flexible. They can even re-gift or donate to a good cause. Make your awards more rewarding. Visit OptionsCard.I.E. today. Air Grid, operator of Ireland's electricity grid, is powering up the North West. We're planning to upgrade the electricity grid in your area, and your input and local knowledge are vital in shaping these plans. Our consultation closes on the 25th of November.

Have your say, online or in person. So together, we can create a more reliable, sustainable electricity supply for your community. Find out more at airgrid.i.4 slash Northwest. The problem with just saying, well, yeah, at the end of the day, just let everyone do what they want. But as soon as you have social ties, as soon as you have a family, as soon as you have children that you care about and you want to see carry, you know, something good into the future,

you realize that it matters. It matters what other people think. Because even if you are somehow able to go your own way and create a good family on your own, kids have to be friends with someone. They've got to marry someone. You know, your wife has to spend time with people.

Like the people you love and carry about, have to exist in a society. And if you have to exist in a society, the idea that everyone can just go their own way is a problem because actually what your neighbor does does affect you. And more importantly, affects your children and your grandchildren. And that's when you understand that this doesn't really work the way you'd hoped. Yeah, I make the point all the time on Twitter when people start talking about schools, you know, government schools, Prussian schooling, anarchists and libertarians just scream, well, just homeschool. Home school your kids.

I'm like, it's great. You're going to raise this kid who is not going to be indoctrinated by this progressive philosophy. Hopefully, who knows what, I guess it would depend on what your homeschooling curriculum is, but your neighbor's not. And your neighbor is sending their kid to the government school to become a soldier for progressivism and you don't think that that's a problem. You don't think that maybe you should be doing everything you can to take over or be a major influence, a major lobbying force on

education locally so that you don't have to put up with that. It's so detached that, well, as long as I take care of my home, I don't have to worry about my neighbor. Well, that's not how this all works. Yeah, and you look at even the most successful people with this kind of thing, right? Look at like the Amish, right? Even these people who have been relatively successful in creating a cloistered society that, let's be honest, can only exist because basically it's allowed to exist. And if at any moment people decided to stop it from existing, they'd have no way to stop it.

But even these people who have basically done the most you can do in. in our society with kind of isolating themselves and their values and going their own way, still understand that, A, it's incredibly necessary to care about your neighbor in a community. Like, even though they've partitioned themselves, they are still very, very serious about their neighbors and caring about them and being involved in their lives and what they do. And also, they understand that they basically give their children this Rumsinger, right? like this period to go out and experience the world because just knowing that it exists out there will probably be too much of a temptation.

And they know that these kids have to like come back and make an active decision to push that aside and make this incredible decision to kind of return to the fold and become part of that community. So even these people who are highly successful, at least in some ways in doing what people would want to do by kind of partitioning off and going their own way. still recognize the incredible influence that the mass culture has and realize that if they don't expose and teach their children how to basically walk away from that and return back to their way of life, then it will always be there and will always be a temptation that will basically pull them away and destroy them. And so even the most successful people of this recognize that you just can't completely cut yourself off from the idea and the values that are happening around you. And like you said, you can homeschool your kids and I don't blame anyone

for rescuing their children from public school system, but you have to understand that they still live lives that are going to be informed by the values and decisions made by those around them. And that's just in the moral case. That's not even talking about the inevitable political costs of just withdrawing entirely from society and hoping that the state doesn't come for you, which they will. All let me finish with this. So Philosophagat this morning tweeted, starting to think the anarchists might have the right idea.

And you responded, your first gulp of inept, bureaucratic government will make you a libertarian anarchist, but at the bottom of the glass monarchy is waiting for you. You want to talk a little bit about that? Sure. So I'm ripping off, and I forget the scientist there, there's a scientist who said,

you know, your first, your first gulp of, of science will, you know, make you like an atheist, a materialist atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you. And,

you know, what I was saying there is basically, it's your first reaction to understanding things in a deeper level is often a low resolution one. We don't think of ourselves as going through that, same journey as like a child does, right? But oftentimes the first time a child has things ripped

away, like the veil of security or the veil of simplicity ripped away. We think of them as like going through this process of becoming more mature. But in many ways, actually, their response is very immature, right? And it's very understandable. We all went through it. I went through it, absolutely, looking at government and saying, well, the problem is all these people being involved in lives. The problem is that the government always makes terrible decisions. And so the obvious solution is just removing the government, right? Like just put it in a position where the good succeed, hard work succeeds. People make voluntary decisions that and the cream rises to the top and then, you know, and then just kind of, you know, devil take the hindmost, right? And that's a very

understandable and common response. But again, it's also very immature. It's, it's, the solution to bad government is not no government. The solution to bad government is a better, understanding of the duty and responsibility of the government and the state. It's a better understanding of how to align the good of those that rule with the good of those who are being ruled. Because simply removing the controls, simply removing and stripping away the state doesn't actually put us in the situation you want it to be. It doesn't actually put us in the state where each person makes their own decision because, again, no man is an island. We are social creatures, we are political animals, we will exist in a society that will happen,

and someone will be in charge of it. And so the answer is not to attempt to rip away. Sovereignty is just never destroyed. Sovereignty is always conserved. Someone will be in charge. And so the more mature reaction is not to attempt to rip away all controls, rip away all understanding of authority, but instead have a better understanding. of what constitutes a moral and beneficial authority under which people can be placed. I think in many cases that is monarchy, though as I later got into the thread with another person, I agree again with Joseph Demester, who said that there is no one perfect form of politics. There's no one particular perfect form of government.

Again, he believed that each civilization has been stamped by God with a particular character. and that the character of the people will inform the best formation of their government. And the constitution and government that eventually comes to be formalized will be a reflection of the nature of those people. That doesn't mean that there aren't bad forms of government and that doesn't mean there aren't superior forms of government. But I don't think that necessarily like monarchy is just the solution for every person. But I do think when we look at this decentralized theocratic oligarchy that currently runs our civilization, it's a disaster.

And I understand the temptation to then say, well, then just tear away all government, throw it all in the trash and then just let people go their own way. But I think that's kind of the first level reaction. I think over time, the more you spend looking at this problem, then I think you eventually make the journey to understanding that. that it's not about obliterating the state or government. It's about finding the best way to put people under a more moral and competent authority that is invested in the good of the people. We will end it right there. Why don't you plug again just in case anybody decided they wanted to fast forward through the intro or something? Sure, absolutely.

You can find Oren McIntyre. You can just search that in YouTube or Twitter. I've got a link tree on my Twitter and on my YouTube videos I've got all the links to just everything else I've got a Gab, I've got Odyssey for the video and Rumble if you want to go to alternative platforms there

I've got a merch store and a subscribe star and all that stuff if you want to support so just all that stuff you can find when you search Orrin McIntyre or YouTube or Twitter Employers Did you know you can now reward you and your staff with up to 1500 euro and gift cards annually, completely tax-free. And even better, you can spread it over five different occasions.

Now's the perfect time to try Options Card. Options Card is Ireland's brand-new multi-choice employee gift card packed with unique features that your staff will love. It's simple to buy, easy to manage, and best of all, there are no extra fees or hidden catches. Visit OptionsCard.I.E. today.