From: jimruttshow8596
Curtis Yarvin, author of the Grey Mirror Substack and founder of the anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic neo-reaction movement (NRX), proposes replacing the current United States government with a monarchy [00:00:32]. This is not a metaphor, but a literal proposal for a king [00:01:10].
Critique of Current Democracy
Yarvin argues that the present form of democracy is flawed and transitional [01:08:36]. He views the U.S. government as lacking a true executive branch, with agencies largely micromanaged by legislative bills [00:13:59]. Members of Congress are seen as largely focused on fundraising and maintaining their positions, with actual legislative work often performed by staff, lobbyists, or activists [00:17:40]. This leads to a situation where the “steering linkage” between elected officials and state policy is “not hooked up at all” [00:19:31].
Yarvin points out a fundamental contradiction in modern American political thought: the idea that “democracy is good, but putting politicians in charge of the government is bad” [00:21:00]. He traces this negative characterization of politics back to the early progressive era, when the government was perceived as corrupt [00:21:11]. He contends that the current system “disconnect[s] the wires from the voters to power very carefully so that they still feel that they matter” [00:21:42], similar to how sports fans support a team [00:22:25]. He suggests that the common assumption that democracy truly controls the state is unexamined [00:09:49].
Symbolic vs. Objective Realities of Politics
Yarvin differentiates between the symbolic and objective realities of politics [00:03:38]. He argues that two main goals of democracy, as typically understood, are to collect the “wisdom of crowds” and to make people feel that they are in charge [00:05:45]. He believes the latter, the human “power drive” and desire to feel important, is a neglected part of human psychology that democracy feeds [00:08:53].
However, Yarvin asserts that if democracy is not fully in control of the state, its primary goal should not be policy-making, but rather gaining and holding power [00:10:18]. He states that political systems are often optimized with a “herbivorous assumption” that they are not contending for power, when in reality, they need to be “carnivorous” [00:25:55].
”Solid Democracy” Thought Experiment
To illustrate his point, Yarvin uses a thought experiment based on “liquid democracy” (a concept where individuals can delegate their votes to others, as discussed in the comparison of meritocracy, democracy and consensus models) [00:03:16]. He transforms this into “solid democracy,” designed to take and hold power rather than merely articulate policy [00:25:55].
Key modifications in “solid democracy” include:
- Frozen Delegation: Instead of being able to change one’s proxy at any time, delegation would be frozen for a fixed period (e.g., four years) or even for life [00:28:03]. This ensures “unconditional loyalty” and allows leaders to act with more confidence [00:32:51].
- Centralized Power: All political power, not just voting, is delegated to a single leader or structure [00:37:01]. This allows for a concentration and amplification of power, turning a “disorganized mob” into an army [01:16:12].
- Party Discipline: Elected representatives would not be independent statesmen but “pretty faces” with a single, combined staff, acting as a unified block with “extremely tight party discipline” [00:44:40].
- Psychological Fulfillment: The system is designed to fulfill people’s actual psychological need to “smash their enemies and take power from them,” rather than focusing on rationalized policy arguments [00:30:52].
Yarvin suggests that such a system, by maximizing power projection upwards, inadvertently “designed a monarchy without knowing that I was constructing a monarchy” [01:12:28].
The Case for Monarchy
Yarvin presents monarchy as the “natural system of government” for a fundamentally apathetic and disengaged population [01:08:07]. He argues that most people today “just want to grill” (live their lives peacefully) [01:11:44], and the main driver for political engagement is “collective fear” of the “other side” [01:23:47].
A monarch, as a singular, unifying force, could “de-escalate that fight” by not governing as the leader of a faction [01:21:40]. This could end the “red versus blue conflict” [01:21:56], leading to universal apathy (in a positive sense, as political conflict disappears) and efficient government [01:29:10]. He envisions a society where cities are cleaned up, infrastructure improves, and people feel they are waking from a “nightmare” [01:30:10].
Historical Precedents and Examples
Yarvin draws on history to support his view:
- Roman Empire: He cites Caesar as an example of a leader who arose from a faction but then governed “all of Rome,” bringing peace after centuries of civil conflict [01:14:35].
- English Civil War: He notes that even during the conflict, both sides claimed to be fighting for the king, highlighting the monarchy’s enduring popularity [01:13:02].
- FDR: Yarvin considers Franklin D. Roosevelt to have essentially become a “monarch” in 1933, wielding personal power far beyond that of later presidents [01:25:54]. He argues that America currently lives in the “ruins of a monarchy that decayed into an oligarchy” [01:26:31].
- 20th Century Dictators: While acknowledging figures like Hitler and Stalin as “terrible regimes,” Yarvin considers them “anomalies” and “attempts at monarchy in the age of democracy” [01:46:30]. He contrasts them with figures like Portugal’s Salazar, an economics professor who “killed off the fascists” and communists to establish a peaceful “new state” [01:44:22]. He also praises Deng Xiaoping as the “greatest political leader of the 20th century” for using absolute power for the good of China [01:45:57].
- 1989 Revolutions: Yarvin points to the peaceful revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe as a template for regime change, where power shifts from the center, leading to “pure joy” and a “feeling of relaxation” rather than violence [01:47:01].
Conclusion and Counterpoints
Jim Rutt, the host, acknowledges the logical progression of Yarvin’s argument, finding it “interesting and scary” [01:12:12]. He suggests that the current brokenness of American politics is a “game theoretic predictable outcome of our institutional structures” [01:40:05]. While intrigued by the idea of a truly unifying monarch, Rutt remains skeptical, citing Winston Churchill’s view that “democracy is the worst system except for all the rest” [01:48:41]. He prefers seeking “new thinking in better forms of democracy” [01:49:55]. Yarvin agrees that the question of how to maintain a “benevolent” monarchy is an important one [01:49:21].