Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/16/2025 2:34:26 PM PST by Pelham
"I am not a conservative. I am a radical—a radical monarchist. I believe there are no rails—and never were any. America has no manifest destiny. Her constitution was not divinely inspired. No special providence was involved in her founding, nor has she discovered any unique principle of human governance. Nor can any theory of historical determinism, whether liberal, Marxist or libertarian, explain, predict or guarantee her future—which, like all future history, is a contingent and unwritten blank page in the hands of men only."
Thus begin the self-revelations of Curtis Yarvin, radical monarchist and scorner of the American founding, in a heated exchange with Manhattan Institute Fellow Christopher Rufo during an event hosted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI). During this exchange, we learn that Rufo’s interlocutor despises the United States, even in its original constitutional-republican form. This troublesome land was “never on the right track” and seems to have always a takeoff point for its present woke incarnation. Yarvin also vents contempt on Martin Luther King Jr., a current establishment conservative icon, and he calls for transforming this country, if possible, into some kind of feudal monarchy, with a CEO-like king.
(Excerpt) Read more at chroniclesmagazine.org ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Thanks.
But seriously, what about this makes you think it is worthy of having people read it?
Alexander Hamilton was accused of promoting a monarchy for America. I don’t know if Moldbug/Yarvin is a closet Hamiltonian but he might be. Or he could simply be an entertaining oddball, despite the perennial grouches of FR failing to see the humor, no surprise there.
Hamilton:
“At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Hamilton presented a plan for the executive that was widely criticized for being too similar to a monarchy:
“Executive for Life: He proposed that the chief executive—a “Governor”—and Senators should serve “during good behavior,” which essentially meant for life, unless removed by impeachment.
“Broad Powers: This Governor would have had an absolute veto over all laws, similar to the King of Great Britain.
“National Control: Hamilton also proposed that the national government appoint the governors of the states, and that these state governors would also have a veto over their state’s laws.
“His plan was largely modeled on the successful British government system, which he considered the “best in the world,” but modified it to be an “elective monarchy” rather than a hereditary one.
It is great to be the king.
It is really bad when somebody else is the king.
Lol.
Yep
I’m pretty sure that I didn’t order you to read it. If you can identify the offender who did that, spill his name and we can ridicule him. Or her. I’m betting that it was a her.
I subscribed to Chronicles beginning in the ‘80s, when Leopold Tyrmand was running the show and it was still called Chronicles of Culture.
I don’t recall anyone at Chronicles advocating monarchies. If anything, National Review had more neo-monarchists writing for it at the time.
It's telling that the only nation whose monarch retains truly meaningful power—Liechtenstein, which actually had a constitutional amendment passed in 2003 to expand the monarchy's powers—is also the last country in Europe that granted women's suffrage (in 1984), and also has even more restrictive anti-abortion policies than Poland (outpaced only by Andorra, where abortion is completely illegal).
The problem isn’t so much Yarvin as it is the pols and influencers in the admin who back his ideas.
Yarvin would probably be as shocked as we are that anyone would take his ideas seriously.
He used to write book length posts as “Mencius Moldbug”, another clue that his stuff wasn’t suitable for the political prime time. I was never sure if it was an elaborate put-on or just what.
“ I’m pretty sure that I didn’t order you to read it.”
Bizarre comment.
I said you thought it was worth reading based on the fact you posted it.
I asked you why you think it’s worth reading.
I guess you don’t want to answer.
Who do you think should be king of America?
I don’t care about Monarchy because I believe that all Regimes, including Monarchies, are fake and disguised Oligarchies.
But the Yarvin convept of “The Cathedral” is an extremely important concept to understanding how the Regime makes decisions.
For example, the NYT (core Cathedral institution) supported Biden until the debate. The day after they called for this withdrawal. Three weeks later he was out of the race.
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/a-brief-explanation-of-the-cathedral
He’s actually very smart. But he reminds me of very smart liberal friends who learned how to speak deconstructionist talk. An endless snarky, pseudo-intellectual rap. Yarvin strikes me as kind of the monarchist version of that.
When I first subscribed to Chronicles, I found it interesting and well informed about history.
2-3 years into it, it was made clear they thought that a monarchy was an acceptable form of government. I stopped reading it.
I have had this discussion here on FR before. Another observer on FR informed me about the Thomas Fleming name, being duplicated. If I remember correctly, they attended the same Church.
That Thomas Fleming would have been the historian. His book on Paul Revere is excellent. And so is his “A Disease in the Public Mind” on the decades of events, often overlooked, that led to the Civil War.
As you know the Thomas Fleming who edited Chronicles is someone else. Chronicles may have published a writer who was pro-monarchy, but so did National Review which routinely featured Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. European conservatives are often in favor of monarchies and both magazines published European writers.
I missed the part where I compelled your attendence. That appears to have been some inner conversation that you were having with yourself.
No one said you did.
You’ve said this twice now. I’m beginning to think you’re insane.
Which makes sense given you want to have a king ruling over you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.