From: jimruttshow8596
Curtis Yarvin proposes replacing the current United States government with a monarchy, a non-metaphorical system led by a king [01:06:07]. This proposal is part of an ongoing exploration into the problems of representative democracy and potential alternatives [01:19:17].
Critique of Modern Governance and the “Solid Democracy” Thought Experiment
Yarvin argues that modern democracy, as it currently operates, is weak and largely symbolic [01:00:00]. He suggests that the democratic system is not truly in control of the state; instead, real power resides elsewhere, often in what he refers to as “oligarchical policy networks” [01:27:40]. The government has become “de-politicized,” meaning politicians are no longer truly in charge [01:07:08]. The concept of “politics” itself has taken on negative connotations, even though it’s synonymous with democracy [01:20:17].
Yarvin introduces a thought experiment called “solid democracy” as a pathway to monarchy [01:14:14]. This system would involve:
- Absolute Delegation of Power: Voters would delegate all their political power, including their vote and their ability to participate politically, to a single leader or structure [01:39:10]. This delegation would be frozen for a significant period, such as four years, or even for life, to maximize the leader’s confidence and ability to act decisively [02:08:01].
- Centralized Control: Instead of individual representatives, there would be one combined staff for the entire “solid democracy party,” with extremely tight party discipline [02:22:04]. The goal of this block is to be as powerful as possible, not to pursue specific policies [02:22:54].
- Power Amplification: This system is designed to amplify the power of a large number of people, focusing it like a laser rather than a flashlight, to “take and hold power” [02:27:00].
The ultimate outcome of “solid democracy,” according to Yarvin, is the unwitting creation of a monarchy [01:12:28]. This occurs because the most effective way to aggregate and project power from a disengaged population is to coalesce all loyalty and power towards a single center [01:13:38].
Arguments for Monarchy
Yarvin argues that monarchy is a more sustainable system of government [01:32:46] and is the “natural system of government for a fundamentally apathetic and disengaged population” [01:28:07], such as he perceives the current American populace to be [01:10:07].
Key Benefits Identified:
- Unifying Force: Monarchy can overcome political divisions and factional conflict by providing a single leader who is not a representative of a faction but a ruler responsible for the entire state [01:24:50]. This “king and the people against the nobles” dynamic historically united common people against entrenched oligarchies [01:12:55].
- Peace and Good Government: In a monarchical system, the populace’s primary desire for peace and efficient government is met, removing the “fear energy” that drives political participation in democracies [01:28:17]. This leads to a sense of awakening from a “nightmare” of chaos and ruin, like public services improving dramatically [01:30:43].
- Efficiency: A centralized executive, like a CEO in a private company, is seen as inherently more efficient than a fragmented, politicized government [01:53:11].
Historical Examples
Yarvin points to various historical and modern examples to support his arguments:
- Roman Empire (Caesar and Augustus): The rise of Caesar is presented not as an evil person destroying a thriving republic, but as a response to a republic devolved into civil war [01:14:38]. Caesar (and Augustus after him) unified Rome by governing for all factions, bringing peace and good government, leading to the disappearance of internal political conflict [01:21:42].
- Napoleon: Similar to Caesar, Napoleon transitioned France from the chaos of revolution to a centrally led empire, demonstrating the ability of a strong leader to stabilize a fragmented society [01:37:35].
- English Civil War: Yarvin notes that even during the English Civil War, the Parliament’s claim was to fight for the king, demonstrating the deep-seated popularity of monarchy [01:13:02].
- Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR): FDR is described as essentially becoming a monarch due to his personal power and control of the state, especially compared to later presidents [01:25:54]. Yarvin suggests that selling monarchy to a liberal could be framed as needing a “new FDR” [01:26:10].
- Egypt (Tamarrud Movement): The 2013 Egyptian coup, where a petition movement (“Tamarrud”) gathered millions of signatures asking the armed forces for a different government, is cited as an example of a populace delegating power to a central force (the army) to achieve change [01:02:28].
- Portugal (Salazar): António de Oliveira Salazar, an economics professor who became Portugal’s dictator, is highlighted as a “benevolent dictator” who brought peace and stability to Portugal by liquidating both fascists and communists, trying to be nonpartisan [01:44:22].
- China (Deng Xiaoping): Deng Xiaoping is regarded as the “greatest political leader of the 20th century” for taking Mao’s absolute power and using it for the good of China, demonstrating that centralized power can be used beneficially [01:54:57].
- Singapore and pre-2017 Hong Kong: These are presented as examples of highly efficient and well-governed societies that had the “pretense of some sort of democracy but everybody knew there wasn’t any” [01:40:50].
Addressing Objections to Monarchy
When faced with concerns about the quality of monarchs (e.g., inbred or corrupt rulers) or the specter of tyrannical dictators like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, Yarvin offers counter-arguments:
- Selection of Rulers: He draws a parallel to executive search firms in the private sector, which find excellent CEOs [01:05:31].
- Tyrannical Regimes: Yarvin views regimes like Hitler’s and Stalin’s as “anomalies” or “attempts at monarchy in the age of democracy” and “wartime regimes” that were in rebellion against the Anglo-American global order [01:41:50]. Their ruthlessness was tied to achieving and maintaining sovereignty by disconnecting from external empires [01:42:24]. He argues that an American transition to monarchy would not face this internal opposition or need for such violence [01:42:50].
- Peaceful Transition: Yarvin asserts that a transition to monarchy in the US would be a “joyous peaceful movement,” similar to the 1989 Eastern Bloc revolutions (e.g., Hungarian Revolution of 1989), where the fall comes from the center and there is no widespread violence [01:43:08]. The population, being apathetic and fearful of the “other side,” would embrace stability and peace once that fear is removed [01:28:21].
- Critique of Recency Bias: Yarvin criticizes focusing solely on recent history (e.g., the last 100 years) when evaluating monarchy, suggesting that broader historical perspective is needed to understand its full potential [01:40:44].
Ultimately, Yarvin concludes that the transition to monarchy involves “abandoning the illusion” of democratic participation and instead directing collective energy towards creating a government that actually works [01:42:06], reverting to the political system most human beings have used throughout history [01:42:06].