From: jimruttshow8596
Curtis Yarvin, author of the Grey Mirror Substack, offers a significant critique of contemporary democratic systems, particularly in the United States. He argues that modern democracy is largely symbolic, disconnected from actual control of the state, and designed to manage public sentiment rather than enact the will of the people [00:03:38].
Democracy as a Symbolic System
Yarvin contends that the primary unexamined assumption behind democratic systems like liquid democracy is that “democracy is actually in control of the state” [00:09:49]. He asserts that if democracy is not fully in control, then the goal shifts from making good policy to gaining and holding power [00:10:21]. He posits that the current system’s “steering linkage is actually really not hooked up at all” [00:19:33], making modifications to democracy purely symbolic unless they aim to restore its power [00:19:47].
The Illusion of Control
Yarvin suggests that a key purpose of modern democracy is to make people “feel that they’re in charge,” providing a “feeling of importance” that is “emotionally dear to a lot of people” [00:07:49]. He compares this feeling of participation to rooting for a college football team, where individuals feel like they are “giving energy” without actually affecting the outcome [00:22:26]. This emotional need for importance, tied to a “human power drive,” is exploited by the system [00:08:53].
The “De-Politicization” of Government
Yarvin highlights a perceived contradiction where “democracy is good but putting politicians in charge of the government is bad” [00:21:00]. He traces this idea back to the Progressive Era in the early 20th century, when government was seen as “corrupt” and “nasty” [00:21:14]. The solution, he argues, was to “disconnect the wires from the voters to power very carefully” [00:21:42].
Role of Politicians and the “Deep State”
He critiques that politicians in Congress, especially newly elected ones, have “no seniority and thus no power” [00:17:10]. Their primary job is fundraising, not statesmanship or debating policy [00:17:40]. Legislation, he claims, often originates from lobbyists or activists, not the elected officials themselves [00:16:42]. He views the current system as “bureaucratic bodies” where representatives are “just pretty faces” [00:44:40].
The idea that the US government doesn’t truly have an executive branch is presented, with agencies being tightly micromanaged by legislative bills, making the White House largely ineffective [00:13:59]. This points to a hidden “oligarchical policy network” that truly controls public policy, rather than elected officials [01:27:40].
The “Cold Civil War” and Factionalism
Yarvin describes the current political landscape as a “cold civil war” between “team blue” and “team red” [01:15:00]. He argues that elections merely decide which side an individual is on, rather than affecting policy [01:15:11]. He criticizes “team red” for still believing in the traditional system, while “team blue” has spent decades “hacking this system” [01:15:41]. This creates a “contest of naivete against machiavellianism” where the latter always wins [01:15:49]. He argues that this factionalism is driven by “collective fear” [01:23:50].
Public Apathy
Yarvin notes that in most countries and times, people are “apathetic” and have “no interest in politics” [01:08:52]. He believes that the current state of democracy reflects a population that is “mostly deactivated” [01:09:41], whose democratic instincts are “almost dead” [01:10:26]. These “americans who exist… just want to grill,” meaning they want a peaceful, unbothered life, free from political intrusion [01:11:44].
Solid Democracy: A Thought Experiment for Real Power
To illustrate what he believes is missing in current democracy, Yarvin introduces “Solid Democracy,” a thought experiment to transform a “deer into a lion” [00:26:03]. This system is designed to amplify and project power upward, rather than merely collect the “wisdom of crowds” [00:25:27].
Key features of “Solid Democracy,” in contrast to current democratic flaws, include:
- Locked Delegation: Unlike liquid democracy where delegation can change at any time, Solid Democracy would freeze delegation for a set period (e.g., four years) to allow leaders to act with confidence without constantly fearing recall [00:28:05]. The ideal would be “irrevocable” or “for life” delegation to maximize power projection [00:32:45].
- Centralized Control: Rather than 20 separate executive domains, power should be focused on a single point to avoid infighting and effectively contend for power [00:31:31]. This contrasts with the idea of separate mini-executives in traditional liquid democracy [00:15:04].
- Absolute Delegation: Voters would delegate not just their vote, but their entire “power to participate in the political process” to a central leader [00:39:09]. This includes voting exactly as directed (pure “data entry” for the voter) and being ready for directed actions [00:39:06].
- Unified Party Discipline: Elected representatives would form a block with “extremely tight party discipline,” aiming to be “as powerful as possible” rather than pursuing individual policy goals [00:45:05]. This is contrasted with the current state of Congress where members do not genuinely debate or change votes based on speeches [00:18:14].
Yarvin concludes that if one optimizes for democratic power, the result is “monarchy” [01:12:28]. This thought experiment directly serves as a critique of civilization and growth paradigm implicit critique of current democratic structures, highlighting their perceived weakness and inefficiency in exercising real power.
The Case for Monarchy as a Solution
Ultimately, Yarvin argues that a transition to monarchy, particularly a Curtis Yarvin’s proposal for monarchy in the USA benevolent one, is the “natural system of government for a fundamentally apathetic and disengaged population” [01:28:07]. He suggests that if a monarch effectively ends the “fear” of the “cold civil war” and delivers efficient government, the populace will experience “universal apathy” and question why they had the “crazy system” of democracy in the first place [01:29:10]. This represents a maturation away from the “illusion” of democracy towards a system that “actually works” [01:38:42].
Other Related Topics