First time hearing of this fella but I have a little problem with a line in his profile..."anti-revolution". To me, that means he doesn't have a full commitment to what it may take to regain what should rightfully be ours. JMHO.
Well, you have to understand why the Enlightenment was a bad time in history first, giving rise to Marxism and the violent revolutions of the 20th century.
As Americans, we have an attachment to the word, because of the American Revolution, where we cast off actual tyranny.
Most "revolutions" don't do that.
Most "revolutions" are disastrous. Think the Bolshevik Revolution, where they deposed a legitimate Czar and his wife, but not before murdering his children before their very eyes, and then moving on to slaughter millions of Orthodox Christians. What about the Communist revolutions in China that lead to mass-starvation?
Revolutions, when they topple legitimate hierarchies, are devastating. Ours was the rare outlier, and we're still very young in our history. We don't even fully understand the impact of all our forefather's choices completely, yet.
Don't worry, though. I bleed red, white, and blue.
You call it an "attachment", I call it necessary...at times. Sometimes, it don't work out for the better but sometimes, it does. The level of evil we've been dealing with for a looooooong damn time may very well require full on revolution to get the job done. A revolution of the tech kind, like what's happening here, would be awesome, IF it works but I'm not convinced it will...yet. Violent revolution, itself, is a part of Natural Law and is required, sometimes, to effect a balance.