It’s very weird the me that Curtis Yarvun doesn’t seem to see the fundamental flaw in the whole monarch thing which is like trying to find and maintain the benevolent dictator. Maybe if I’d read his fifteen year blog history I’d see his defense of that, but like Yarvin hangs out at BDSM parties and Burning man. Seems odd to me in a country where the Conservative Party is mostly controlled by a deeply conservative religious right, that the autocrat that would win game of thrones would be remotely aligned with the vision Curtis has for the future.
Also, let’s not forget the whole, if you’re ideas are that good, why do you need a dictator to implement them, why not submit them to the marketplace of ideas, and if they’re good people will vote for them.
I think America at the federal doesn't have democracy. It does at the local level but at the federal level it is pretty clear that unelected officials not only have control, but have other objectives which prioritize the global American empire. From undeclared wars to meddling in other country's politics, to the ever increasing budget for the military, their objectives do not align with what the people want. It is what it is, however the main issue is that most people are not aware and believe the surface level political show during election year and then go back to their daily lives of not paying attention.
As far as the article, I think a monarchy is obviously antithetical to America, so it doesn't make sense unless the point is to destroy America and its founding values.
> Curtis Yarvin has laid out a critique of American democracy: arguing that it’s liberals in elite academic institutions, media outlets, and the permanent bureaucracy who hold true power in this declining country, ...
> Yarvin argues for a "neo-cameralist" philosophy based on Frederick the Great of Prussia's cameralism.[31] In Yarvin's view, democratic governments are inefficient and wasteful and should be replaced with sovereign joint-stock corporations whose "shareholders" (large owners) elect an executive with total power, but who must serve at their pleasure.
