X Close

Only a monarch can control the elites Democracy enables the deep state to rule us

Credit: Geoff Pugh - WPA Pool /Getty


August 31, 2022   9 mins

It’s a little-known fact that Shakespeare hated Americans. At least, when in Twelfth Night Sir Andrew Aguecheek said “I had as lief be a Brownist as a politician”, he meant the same impertinent little cult that would later set out on the Mayflower.

So it seems especially impertinent — hence especially appropriate — for an American to criticise your monarchy. Especially an American monarchist like me. I am not even a costume monarchist — I am not in it for the castles, weddings, and funny hats. I actually think of monarchy as a legitimate form of government. And by monarchy I mean actual monarchy: absolute monarchy.

There are only three forms of government: monarchy (rule of one), oligarchy (rule of few), and democracy (rule of many). Monarchy is good because it is better than oligarchy. Democracy is neither good nor bad — it is just impossible. With today’s voters, at least. It is not just that voters are not wise enough to control the government. It’s worse: the voters are not powerful enough to control the government. They — or at least the politicians they elect — have not had significant power for decades.

Monarchy is both the most common form of public-sector governance in history, and the universal form of private-sector governance (all corporations have CEOs). Any private-sector firm could operate as a republic or other oligarchical form. None do. There are no senates, assemblies or supreme courts in the private sector — let alone anything like the administrative state. Monarchy —ideally accountable monarchy, with a board of directors or some other safety mechanism — just works better.

So either the whole public sector today is mad, or the rest of human history was mad, and so is the entire private sector. As an American monarchist, I choose the former. But in Britain, how should you feel about it? You already have a monarchy. Not monarchy as a form of government — but as a theatre of government. It’s a sort of official soap opera, one that has been on-air a long time — about 300 years, by some counts.

As even its defenders would surely admit, the British monarchy is not a functional organ of governance. It is a living monument of history. The German for “monument” is evocative — Denkmal, meaning “an occasion to think”. To ask questions, perhaps. Simple questions. Dangerous questions.

Yet in this year of Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee, few Englishmen will stop to ask the simplest, most dangerous form of question that history can ask: to ask the past for a judgment of the present. One insanely dangerous way for you to ask is: what would Elizabeth I think of Elizabeth II?

Leopold von Ranke, not a Nazi Panzer commander but actually the inventor of modern history, wrote: “Every age stands equal before God.” Ranke’s law does not deny any era the right to judge any other. But it must allow itself to be judged in return.

At the birth of Elizabeth I, England was a minor power. At the death of Elizabeth II, the UK will be a minor power. In between, Britons ruled the world for a century and a half. In Elizabeth I’s time, England was a rising power. In Elizabeth II’s time, England is a fading power.

How would Elizabeth Tudor feel about all this? Petrified? Blimpish? If she had to characterise Elizabeth Windsor’s perspective of monarchy and government, what adjectives would she use? The term roi fainĂ©ant (a do-nothing monarch) is a millennium older than the Tudors — invented for the hopeless Merovingians.

How would the Tudors not find the comparison of the Windsors to the Merovingians obvious? Especially when they heard that the Windsors, unlike the Merovingians in France in the 5th century, had reigned over a palpable national decline? At least the Merovingians had the good grace to give way to the frankly much more badass Carolingians. The Windsors have given way not even to Parliament, but to a bunch of bureaucrats; to a gang of foundations, quangos, media conglomerates and university administrators. At least the early Merovingians won and held their crowns by the sword. Perhaps: once a costume dynasty, always a costume dynasty.

It is easy for Elizabeth II to judge Elizabeth I. For example, diversity and inclusion are among Elizabeth Windsor’s core principles whereas Elizabeth Tudor was a racist. But we need not accept Elizabeth I’s prehistoric racial theories to find her political insights relevant. The past, without being perfect, can usefully criticise the present.

It was Bagehot, the 19th-century theorist of the English Constitution, who best described the difference between Elizabeth I and II. Bagehot divided sovereigns into the effective (actually in control of the state) and the dignified (a crowned Kardashian, a long-haired Merovingian man-doll). A more modern version of these labels might be operating and ceremonial. Elizabeth I was the operating Elizabeth. Elizabeth II is the ceremonial Elizabeth. A costume Queen.

It is true that the binary is not absolute. In Bagehot’s day, Parliament was effective and Victoria was ceremonial. But Victoria certainly mattered much more than Elizabeth II, if much less than Elizabeth I. In our day we might say that both Parliament and Queen are dignified —the operating power lies in Whitehall (if it is in England at all).

Moreover, a really critical Tudor historian might question whether the decline of working absolutism in the English monarchy did not precede Elizabeth II. The Stuarts, alien in nation and suspect in religion, were never secure on the throne. James I ranted about divine right and absolute power, because he knew he doesn’t have it. Charles I seriously tried to be a limited monarch — resulting in the judicial murder of Strafford; Charles II was restored only as a limited monarch; don’t even start me on the “Glorious Revolution”. But surely Elizabeth I was peak England?

But was Elizabethan England really Elizabeth’s? To what extent was this woman actually the CEO of the government? Was she in charge — or was it “Leicester’s Commonwealth”? Was it really the Cecils who invented the Deep State? And Walsingham the intelligence community?

We do get a sense of the increasing importance of an early “deep state” as the Tudor dynasty boots up. Henry VIII was a kingly king, but his attention did seem to wander, and his policies did often seem driven by his advisers. I know of no indication that his father, Henry VII, meant anything but business — as anyone would expect of a chad rebel who seized the throne on horseback with his sword. For there were true kings on Earth in those days. But let us treat the Tudors as a homogeneous monolith and history as binary. Tudors both reign and rule; Windsors only reign, but do not rule. (Cromwell, also a monarch, ruled, but did not reign.)

One way to identify a ceremonial or dignified institution is to detect a situation in which a seeming organ of power is vestigial. An organ or organisation in a larger regime is vestigial if the regime could continue operating as usual without it. When Elizabeth I kicked it, that was the end of Elizabethan England. What followed was still very cool, but it was not Elizabethan England.

An objective political change can change the lives of everyone in the country — think of everyone who used to be an East German — and always somehow disrupts or replaces the governing elite. If Elizabeth II passes away tomorrow, the trash in London will still be picked up. If the monarchy did not exist, Whitehall would function as usual. If Parliament, the Cabinet, and the voters did not exist, Whitehall would function as usual.

What this “Elizabeth test” teaches us is that it is obvious to even the dogs in the street that democracy has gone the way of monarchy, becoming ceremonial or dignified. The 20th-century removal of politics and politicians, and hence voters and elections, from actual authority over the government, was the century’s great changing of the guard.

The Trump administration did not disrupt the elite. Disruption can be measured by number of jobs destroyed. How many elite jobs did Trump destroy? He annoyed and energised the elite. He was the best thing that ever happened to the New York Times. Thousands of public-spirited Ivy graduates must owe Trump their jobs to this day.

Brexit did not disrupt the elite. If anything, Brexit gave power back to some purely British institution — such as Whitehall (for Yanks, the British deep state). But Whitehall would much rather implement directives from Brussels — freeing the native mandarins from responsibility, the bane of all bureaucrats. The only possible recipients of power in Brexit did not even want it. The voters? They voted for Brexit, accepted a few weird bureaucratic complications, and went back to their fish and chips.

As Bagehot explains, putting a fake power in front of the real power has tremendous benefits. It is even better to have two layers of fake — both monarchy and democracy. This double panel acts as a perfect bullet-absorber for the civil-service oligarchy, which, though young, was already building its strength in Bagehot’s time.

The working Queen, Elizabeth I, must feel that her fancy-dress successor was in some way tricked out of her rightful power. Elizabeth I will judge Elizabeth II for investing in this trick — rather than exposing it, rising up and restoring the monarchy. For the people, too, were tricked — out of their right to a real monarch.

How did monarchies even become ceremonial? Usually not in one step. Rather, their first step was to become constitutional. It turns out that as soon as a monarchy loses any power, it very soon loses all power — and often its head as well.

Ultimately, the purpose of a ceremonial monarchy is to prevent the existence of a functional monarchy. Where a puppet reigns, no one else can reign; so no one reigns at all. So a murky, distributed oligarchy can rule — unchallenged by the clear, clean sunlight of irresistible central power.

The Whig oligarchs of the early 18th century installed the Hanoverians, a dynasty with no inherent support base in England, in place of the dangerous Stuarts. Any Stuart revolt — and there were two — would have to go through the Hanoverians first. But it is a long time since the early 18th century.

We can look at the UK today and ask: what would Elizabeth Tudor do? When we imagine Elizabeth Tudor waking up in the rejuvenated body of Elizabeth Windsor, it makes little difference that their actual roles in government have changed. Nothing at all has changed about the English constitution. The Queen reserves all her royal prerogative.

It is customary for the British monarch to use prerogative power only under her ministers’ advice — except in an emergency. While monarchy is nothing without a deep respect for custom, unfortunately it is an emergency. And has been, Elizabeth Tudor will tell you, for at least the last half-century.

The new old Elizabeth declares martial law and puts the police under her direct orders. She never considers the possibility that she has anything less than absolute power. Bobbies everywhere are shutting down the oligarchy — padlocking the buildings, imaging the servers, freezing the accounts. All state, media, quango and university employees are retired. Even primary schools are closed for the reset. Only essential productive workers still work — for now, everyone else can chill, and still get paid. As we learned under Covid, the paycheck is the essence of the bullshit job.

Of course, this day is only the start of the renewal of Britain. “The revolution was first in the mind of the king.” The truth about the revolution is that, in nations with a surviving monarchy — even a purely ceremonial monarchy, like Britain’s today — the revolution remains in the mind of the monarch.

A modern monarch who chose to be not a costume-king in the school of the Windsors, but at the very least a Patriot King in the school of Bolingbroke, would not have to work hard at all to regain monarchical control of the state. At least, regaining full control is much easier than regaining a tiny bit of control.

The essence of the modern coup d’etat is the use of popular enthusiasm to gain stable, unified, direct control over the security forces. Everything about this transition must feel completely natural, inevitable and irreversible — in retrospect. This is exactly how it could feel — it won’t, of course — when Charles III finally takes the throne.

All agencies other than the army and police can be retired. This cannot be done with the security forces. No one wants anarchy in the UK. But also, no one actually needs the Ministry of Defence — what is it defending? Just bring everyone home already. At least temporarily.

Under direct royal command, military and police leadership must undergo a rapid purge and reshuffle. Staff who can show their (prior) commitment to the new regime are rapidly advanced; those known to be sympathetic to the old are sidelined. It may not be fair. What is? What ever was?

And power is a shark. It has to keep moving. Power for power’s sake is a dead fish. What does Charles III want to make of his Britain? What does he have the power to change? After executing this manoeuvre — anything. The Patriot King is the nation’s gardener; his goal is to make its lovely human flora burgeon and blossom. Obviously, his first job is building a new government — but the problem goes far beyond this. He has to build a new society and a new economy. Everything is a ruin.

If there is any set of people who need to be challenged the most, it is the highest elites. An aspect of the Elizabethan court which is almost impossible to explain to the modern world is that it is the centre of excellence in everything. In the early Elizabethan era at least, the best plays and poems in England were by courtiers. In the modern era, a royal court in the Elizabethan style would be surrounded by the country’s best scientists, filmmakers, mountain climbers. Not only would royal sponsorship select and fund the best people; it would even lead them stylistically. The style of the king would become the fashion of the country.

As opposed to — where does style come from, nowadays? Centres of excellence are hidden to those not in the know; they are widely spread across fields; sometimes they are taken over by bad people, and become centres of badness. But elites benefit from concentration; concentrating the elite of an elite around one centre is the way to create the most awesome elite. Such is the job of a royal court.

Of course, it all depends on the right king. In the history of kings, which is most of human history, there are awesome kings and not-so-awesome kings. But if we accept Elizabeth II’s responsibility for the condition of England, and try to hypothesise Elizabeth I’s reaction to that same condition, “not so awesome” doesn’t cover it. Imagine her inspecting some of what you chaps call “council housing”.

Yet as an American I must face the fact that London is the last city outside America which still has the right to call itself the capital of the world. “Though much is taken, much abides.” It will probably keep falling. It could rise again.

A proud, renewed and independent royal Britain, a based Britain, could easily create elite institutions and cohorts that challenged and surpassed the aging titans of the American world. Because of London’s legacy of world domination, anti-American nationalists everywhere would naturally become Anglophiles.

And even we Americans could easily throw off the vast carcass of our 20th-century regime by appealing to a higher power to restore order — were there any such power. One day we may elect a President with a mandate to peacefully cede sovereignty to our rightful king, Charles III.

The King is right there, on the inauguration podium. The President hands him the Bible and the nuclear football. He takes command and the President calls an Uber. From the river, a deep roar — a corps of Royal Marines, on enormous transatlantic Hovercraft, is cruising in formation up the Potomac



Curtis Yarvin is an American writer and software developer. His Substack is Gray Mirror.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

101 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
2 years ago

I think our current Queen is the last of her breed, in terms of knowing and respecting her role, which is to be ‘above the fray’.

The younger royals will bring about a move away from monarchy, because they don’t understand or engage with the idea of sacrifice and dignified silence. They don’t understand that the monarch is the crown made flesh – powerful, yet silent. The monarch’s power is the highest in the land, so it’s utterly essential to the functioning of that system that the monarch not ever become involved in matters of politics.

Charles will never grasp this. He is overtly political, and allied to the transnational technocratic ideologies propagated by the WEF and the UN etc. We know this from the uncovering of his letters to Parliament. As soon as he takes the throne he will destroy the impartiality of the crown by allying it to certain political positions. And don’t even get me started on Andrew, who has utterly debased the dignity of the Crown with his grotesque cavorting with people like Epstein.

…as for the next generation, narcissism abounds. Not so much “the Crown” anymore, but “Me, me, me”. Will & Kate seem sweet, but have fallen into the trap of emoting in public, and burbling up all kinds of well intentioned but inappropriate thoughts. As for Woko Ono and her Petulant Prince, those two seem to be trying to actively push Britain towards abolition of the whole circus. They just WILL. NOT. STOP. talking about themselves, and hectoring the plebs with their smug and deluded “truths”.

It’s true that constitutional monarchy has been historically a very stable system, but that relied on the power of the throne being silent and impartial …which is a life of sacrifice that’s clearly beyond the capability or interest of the next generation of royals. They will debase and politicise the Crown in short order, which makes me very sad.

Christopher Peter
Christopher Peter
2 years ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

I hope you are wrong, but I fear you may be right. I believe that Charles, William and Kate are at least well meaning (but the road to hell is paved etc.). Harry and Meghan aren’t even that.

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
1 year ago

I for one would beg to differ in saying that only Will & Kate are well meaning folks, the rest of the others including Old Charlie- just no.

Ryan Schneider
Ryan Schneider
2 years ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Mrs. Wenzel of Austria, the Stuart Heir to the Old Pretender, and her son, Bonnie Prince Joe, THEY have held to that dignity as manifested by the Royal houses of Hapsburg and Lichtenstein, of which Stuart has been abiding in exile among all these years, even in spite of Austria’s recent bad habit of officially not recognizing them, yet members all very competently rising to leadership positions of every kind, political and business. Their local communities are WELL prepared and very willing to officially put Hapsburg in charge again following any major general European collapse. They are staunch traditionalists and conservative Catholic Christians, too, far from the Broadchurch wokism that even Elizabeth has embraced, albeit subtly in her case.
Regardless, I’ve retained JUST enough of a libertarian element from my wayward youth that I remain very minarchist even as I embrace monarchy. I truly think the IRISH system was the best possible compromise between monarchy and republicanism. Each county has hereditary earls (or counts) but NOT a hereditary king, and when the king dies, the earls hold a conclave in which the best Earl is elected King, (his own earldom then passes to his next in line). The ONLY other layer of nobility are the Knights and Dames, who can marry into the earldom families, and one another AND peasants and Merchants, except in a country as big as America, we would need the additional layer of Archearl, who would be the Governor of each state, also elected by the Earls of their state. Nobility can only marry one another and knights. Anyone can apply to become a knight, but must pass several of a series of trials and tests to earn the title (not necessarily ALL). For the needs of the modern world, the tests would be physical, intellectual, philosophical, theological and technological. Basically, the kind of people that would qualify for either Mensa, the Olympics, Church Leaders, the Marines or big tech CEOs, (or maybe more more than one), in the world as we know it would become knights and dames. Local democracy would be retained for the free citizen-peasantry and citizen-merchantmen for the election of mayors and lobbyists who represent their interests to the earls and king.
This would keep the bureaucracy a short as possible and the common folks of average ability involved and represented. A very limited constitution including protecting free speech EXCEPT for open and direct blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and NO artificial obstacles to becoming a knight beyond the original tests and trials. Potential Upward mobility into the noble classes must be barred to nobody but the inherently mediocre.

Mark Thomas Lickona
Mark Thomas Lickona
2 years ago
Reply to  Ryan Schneider

Eh…. this is awesome. I knew I was right in choosing Ireland to expatriate to.

Andrew Horsman
Andrew Horsman
2 years ago

The author is assuming that politics still operates primarily at the level of the post-Westphalian nation state. It does not. The “pandemic treaty” which Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the allegedly corrupt Chinese Communist Party stooge who is supposedly running the WHO, emphatically described earlier this year as a complete “game changer” is in the works. This could, potentially, give this proxy for a global monarch the power to do what he (or his master’s voice) will with most of the world, assuming that most national “leaders” fulfill their treaty obligations and fall in line with the WHO’s strictures when the next “inevitable” pandemic hits us.

Wake up people. It’s not only capital, labour, goods, and services that are transnational; it’s our way of thinking, our politics, our ethics, our values systems, our very reality. We face a stark choice.

Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
Mr Sketerzen Bhoto
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

The whole anti China nonsense is itself driven by the deep state. This time the military and security part. China wouldn’t be a concern of Elizabeth I, if she came back.

The internationalism you condemn is driven mostly by the American empire, which isn’t the same as the US republic, but largely concentrated there.

Duane McPherson
Duane McPherson
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

“It’s not only capital, labour, goods, and services that are transnational; it’s our way of thinking, our politics, our ethics, our values systems, our very reality.”
Your comment is very much on the mark. And our tragedy lies in the fact that our thinking and our value systems have become transactional; because of that, we are unable to see our condition in any context other than the transactional. Meaning, we are effectively blinded to the source of our troubles.

Last edited 2 years ago by Duane McPherson
Joanna Picetti
Joanna Picetti
2 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

Our identity as human beings, (as a whole specie). Who we are?

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
2 years ago
Reply to  Joanna Picetti

Species, Species, Speciem, Speciei, Speciei, Specie
Species, Species, Species, Specierum, Speciebus, Speciebus

Fafa Fafa
Fafa Fafa
2 years ago
Reply to  Christian Moon

… and don’t get me started on “bicep”.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
2 years ago

The most laughable article I’ve read for years. Monarchy, absolute or not, is not just concerned with the current ruler but with the succession from one ruler to the next. Few or no public or private sector organisation would automatically choose the oldest child of the current chief executive to take over as the next chief executive. They are therefore not monarchies. The main reason for countries introducing constitutional monarchies was the destruction and anarchy caused by disputes over succession to the thrones of non-constitutional monarchies.
The move to a constitutional monarchy was an essential component of creating the British Empire. Wars from 1660 were fought due to national interest and not the interest of the ruling royal family. Had Britain not had a constitutional monarchy, it would probably have continued scrapping over parts of France – largely unsuccessfully.
The British people have seen a large increase in their standard of living since 1952. This is despite the decline of Britain’s importance in the world and the end of the British Empire. Do not confuse the interests of the elite with those of the people. No better example is provided than that of the USA, where the position of the USA as the sole global power over 30 years and the profits accrued from moving US based manufacturing abroad has been accompanied by a decline in living standards of millions of Americans.

Albireo Double
Albireo Double
2 years ago

 Few or no public or private sector organisation would automatically choose the oldest child of the current chief executive to take over as the next chief executive. 
Oh don’t you believe it! This happens far far more often than is apparent.

Bruce Mendrikis
Bruce Mendrikis
2 years ago

 Few or no public or private sector organisation would automatically choose the oldest child of the current chief executive to take over as the next chief executive.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2011-07-20/twenty-ceos-who-inherited-their-jobs
https://www.familybusinessmagazine.com/family-business-ceos-watch-2020
and so-on and so-forth in that fashion..

David Yetter
David Yetter
2 years ago

You confound hereditary monarchy with monarchy qua monarchy. Anglo-Saxon kingdoms chose their kings from among aethlings, a class of people regarded as being of royal blood, the choice being made by an assembly of noblemen when the previous king died. Likewise, while there were stretches of primogeniture in the succession to the throne of the Roman Empire (which I regard as falling in 1453, not with the retirement of the last Western Augustus to a villa near Naples ifn476), succession could take place by acclamation of the Army (e.g. Constantine) or by shunting aside an incompetent heir (e.g. Irene, who had an idiot son murdered so she could take the throne upon her husband’s death, or John Cantacuzenus, who took the throne because the claimant based on primogentiure, a nephew of his, was young and naive, but who subsequently retired to a monastery, turning the throne over his nephew after the latter had a good deal more experience in matters relevant to state-craft).

Last edited 2 years ago by David Yetter
Sam Sky
Sam Sky
2 years ago
Reply to  David Yetter

Or one might add the Holy Roman Empire or Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth but of which survived centuries as decentralised elected monarchies before modernity over took them.

Jay Gls
Jay Gls
2 years ago

The author completely misses the contemporary use of the monarchy. Parliamentary monarchies are the most stable kinds of regime. Look at the last century. Which countries became dictatorships? Mostly republics. Which remained democratic? Parliamentary monarchies. Hitler would never have seized power if Germany had remained a monarchy, the monarch would not have allowed it as Hindenburg did because of popular pressure. Why? Because the whole point of the royal prerogative, though not used in normal times, is to stop a wannabe dictator from breaking the constitution. The Spanish monarch saved Spain from a coup in 1981. He was a rallying point.

The author mentions Whitehall as the real organ of government, because even if Parliament was removed the workings of government would still function. But remove Whitehall and you still have the NHS, schools, police stations… Does that make doctors, teachers and police officers the actual ministers of the land? No! True government is not determined by what goes on working after everything else is removed, government is exactly the opposite: deciding to change the way things work. And that is still what Parliament does.

The author makes the comparison of Elizabeth I and II, because of the similar status of England in the world at both times. Fine. Why not compare Victoria and Elizabeth II as well? What power did Victoria exercise that Elizabeth does not? There is no connection between the monarch’s exercise of power and the nation’s success. At the height of England’s rule of a quarter of the world, the monarch was the same as today.

The author says no company is ruled by democracy. I beg to differ. Coops, though not widespread, exist and thrive.

And finally, the author defines a monarchy as a single person making the decisions. In that case, France is a monarchy. The president, with a majority in the Assemblée nationale (which might not go on for much longer, mind you) is effectively a five year monarch. There is nothing to stop him really. And look where that got France.

Last edited 2 years ago by Jay Gls
Chelcie Morris
Chelcie Morris
2 years ago
Reply to  Jay Gls

“There is no connection between the monarch’s exercise of power and the nation’s success.” But there is. Under the watch of Elizabeth I we had the start of our empire, we were rich thanks to the exporting of goods and services, we we becoming a nation that was revered for it’s arts and crafts and we were starting to become a major naval power.

By the time of Victoria we were already at the peak and starting our decline. There was growing apathy within the aristocracy even before her time, but it really starting to show its head during her reign, and this is what blossomed into the trendy self-hatred we see in the middle and upper classes to this day, the average person was poorer than they had ever been, industrialistion had marched on without any pushback leading to millions moving out of the countryside and into the cities, and it was within the capitalistic, and democratic, classes best interests to continue on, focussing on the empire and making foreign lands better while our own suffered terribly, because it made them rich while it stroked their egos.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
2 years ago
Reply to  Chelcie Morris

People forget how much better off people are in even the worst primitive industrialisations than they had been in subsistence agriculture. True then, true now.
The evidence is not just in the economic history literature, but, a priori, why else were people leaving the land for the cities?

Matthew Estill
Matthew Estill
2 years ago
Reply to  Jay Gls

Mussolini establishes dictatorship within a constitutional monarchy: I do not think we can claim constitutional monarchies prevent dictatorships from occurring. It must depend, to some extent, upon the monarch’s personal views, and their willingness to put their own position at risk by challenging their ministers, I think.

Tony Abbott
Tony Abbott
2 years ago
Reply to  Matthew Estill

A good point. Had Edward been on the throne in 1940 instead of George then things might have turned out very differently.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
2 years ago
Reply to  Tony Abbott

England has always removed monarchs who go against the peoples wishes; Edward II, Richard II and Charles I. A Monarch who fails to obtain consent through consultation has been killed in the past.

Elena RodrĂ­guez
Elena RodrĂ­guez
2 years ago

I don’t understand how the writer can so easily dismiss democracy. Sure, it isn’t working well at the moment, but that is because most people in democratic countries have been subjected to appalling forms of education systems over the past few decades. The formalised education system of schools and universities has been allowed to become a place where only obedient types can work. Those who courageously try to encourage critical thinking find themselves pushed out by colleagues competing against them for higher positions, supported by those in whose interest it is to prevent people challenging the way the world currently works.
The other form of education system that has caused devastation to our societies, is that which comes by way of the mass media. This has got worse with Smartphones because now everyone is constantly being bombarded with ill-thought-through news stories that are sent to them constantly, leaving people with no time to reflect on anything. And democracy can’t function properly if people have lost the ability to quietly reflect on issues over a period of time.
To advocate for an absolute monarchy rather than a democracy is ridiculous. Absolute monarchs are much easier to bribe than whole nations of people. The Shah of Iran springs to mind, a man who was put in place by the CIA and MI6 to replace Mohammed Mossadegh – Iran’s democratically elected leader – and then was funded for decades by the Americans, leaving the Iranians extremely angry, eventually bringing about the Iranian Revolution of the 1970s.
I don’t understand what the difference is between a dictator and an absolute monarch. Both have far too much power and few of them turn out to be good for our societies. A far better solution to our current problems is to convince people to return to being educated by way of face-to-face debates and reading the great works of literature and philosophy our cultures have provided us with – and then debating the ideas that come from our histories and cultures to find ways of improving the democratic systems we’ve already got, which, whilst flawed, are far fairer than absolute monarchies of the past.

Scott Anderson
Scott Anderson
2 years ago

Because it’s all the rage right now and piling on is highly encouraged.
“Our Democracy” is a signal of the establishment and their current partners.

Russ W
Russ W
2 years ago

Nailed it, Eelna.

Anne Wilder
Anne Wilder
2 years ago

You’re right–an educated society is a civilized society. It’s the only way. But the world is in decay. Literature is dead, history is skewed, as usual, and computer devices rule. The digital age is the nail in the coffin of, not only democracy, but civilization. It’s over for the once-great, as well as the would-be, empires.

Mark Thomas Lickona
Mark Thomas Lickona
2 years ago

Magna Carta of course made the monarch a little less than absolute. It was arguably a way of reminding the king that he has to answer to God. But that’s still a king we’re talking about, which is benighted anathema to the West today (in part bc the West today is God-hating), so I think the author here gives a necessary course-correcting shove to the hull of Western “civilization.” Only the demos speaking with the sensus fidelium is a guarantor of God’s will being done, and then only if properly formed, as Anne W. suggests below (or at least, only if not de-formed). And even then the demos are always looking for a shepherd. It may indeed be easier to own one man rather than the whole of the demos, unless that one man is owned by something else which money cannot gainsay, namely fear of God and sense of duty. It’s also easier to ensure the right formation of the next monarch than it is the right formation of the entire demos, i.e., by way of public education. Again, the demos are always looking for someone to lead the way by their example as well as by their instruction. And every who has been a teacher [raises hand] knows that a teacher’s job is so much easier if someone of “higher authority” (parents, Church, monarch, law) is also engaged in the same work of formation.

Jake Dee
Jake Dee
2 years ago

I’ve been reading Yarvin/Moldbug for years, love him or hate him (I love him) you have to go deep to engage with him. He’s a highly intelligent man who, after getting a buy out from his software business undertook what he called an “independent Phd” by taking the difficult path of reading old books. Perhaps the old place where you can be safe from being propagandized by any current political faction. By not seeking or trading favors with the first, second, third or fourth estates, I believe he has become the foremost political philosopher of his generation.

Kat L
Kat L
2 years ago
Reply to  Jake Dee

I want to like him but he never seems to get to the point.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
2 years ago
Reply to  Kat L

You will absorb his teachings better if you have to do some of the work for yourself: it’s all calculated.

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
2 years ago

In reference to the title of the article: “Only a monarch can control the elites.”
What happens when the monarch decides to merge/ally with the elites? …Charles is a collaborator of the WEF, and moves in these globalist circles, speaks at their conferences and is fully on board with the technocracy being foisted upon us.

The author is proposing that the monarchy will shield us from the worst excesses of elitist overreach, but this rather overlooks the fact that the next monarch about to take power is a fully paid up member of the ‘Deep State’ / Technocracy / Globalists …or whatever you want to call this power base that is the enemy of a free people.

How can we be shielded from them, is the monarch IS them?

E. L. Herndon
E. L. Herndon
2 years ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Good point. How many of an “absolute” ruler’s shocking decisions are mostly acts of defense (of own primacy, not necessarily the good of the state) against the other power players, on an always potentially equal field? One thinks of Henry VIII and his turbulent treacherous nobles — the Cousins War moving into the modern world. One must inevitably reflect on Lord Acton’s dictum (“power corrupts”) and the fact that a concentration of power means a concentration of vulnerability. As in so many matters of Nature, messy is better.

Sam Sky
Sam Sky
2 years ago

“Because of London’s legacy of world domination, anti-American nationalists everywhere would naturally become Anglophiles.”
Er, wut? This makes no sense whatsoever. Nationalists of other countries are by definition interested in their own domination and will resent the growth of another one, especially when said growth tramples on their own designs. There’s a reason far-right Spanish nationalists call the British pirates, precisely from the era of Elizabeth I that this article wishes to make a comparison.
“One day we may elect a President with a mandate to peacefully cede sovereignty to our rightful king, Charles III.”
And one day someone may clone Hitler from his frozen body in Antartica and start a new World War.
I mean also, since when did one country which had been separated for another join peacefully to another without overwhelming support for such a proposition? Even then it tends to turn sour a few years later. The author seems completely divorced from political realism.
“Leopold von Ranke, not a Nazi Panzer commander”
I am not sure where exactly the author come across the idea that jokes condescending the intelligence of the reader improve the quality of an essay.
Still, the invocation of von Ranke, the arch-empiricist historian, seems ironic in one who seems to want to see history through his private rationalisations rather than recognising the messy complexities and contradictions that von Ranke’s “strict presentation of facts” demands.
If there is a great bureaucracy now, susceptible to cultural and political indocrination it is because of the huge size of the state compared to <100 years ago. For example any look at European history since the 16th century sees the rise of the state closely tied to the need for military centralisation. This became a Darwinian struggle for surival. This process was supercharged by the World Wars. These very real facts in the empirical sense of conflict and the revolution and the steps that a state needs in order to survive – and the unexpected effects of this such as a wokised bureuacracy – aught to make one more cautious about changes and effects that these might bring about. In this sense I sense the software engineer in the author, that society is somehow a program that just needs the right operating system to run well. But I, like Burke, am suspcious of such rationalistic lines of reasoning when it comes to radical political change.
“I am not in it for the castles, weddings, and funny hats. ”
The author seems to miss one of the key reasons people support actually existing monarchies – history and rootedness to their community and culture. A country isn’t a business, despite what many Silicon Valley types like Yarvin think. Maybe the bureaucracy could be run better than with business like practices, I don’t doubt this, and yet on this basis in real terms the very republican Singapore is miles ahead of a real absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia.
I don’t really see any deep engagement in this author’s reading of history or the contradictory forces of power and human nature that lead to the never ending complex mess that is human history. I have read many of the same authors he is name dropping here but with none of them has he demonstrated to me an actual deep engagement with their works beyond trying to tie a superficial reading of them to his own fantasy fiction.
Indeed the authors whole diction is off putting, using the informal language of California surfers (“badass”), which, dare I say, perhaps reflects the fact that this whole movement feels like the curdling of what was once known as the libertarian/anarchist Californian ideology (and its precursor the Californian Counterculture of the 1960s) to something more authoritarian when these Rousseauian idealists, many who seemed to border on some kind of Autistic understanding of human nature, found out that people really did like traditional culture and weren’t prepared to dump history and “bourgeois values” in order to “Turn on, tune in, drop out”.
But why did this curdle? Those who promoted technological change and the new technologies of interconnectedness in the 1990s, or indeed the liberating effects of drugs in the 1960s were also, it would seem to be blind to human nature. I remember the latter well and they seem to assume that human nature, its envy, its hate, its greed, its tendency to look to prophets and sects (see woke or venture capital bubble of the modern tech industry), its mob mentality, would just dissolve away in the newly liberated world with open communication that the tech industry would create. And now, having looked at a humanity that refused to be liberated from its own history and nature it seems we need to resurrect ancient forms of governments to force people to liberate themselves? Forgive me for not being optimistic about where this will go or that Emperor Elon Musk will change and unchain human nature where the Jacobins or Soviets failed.
“Any private-sector firm could operate as a republic or other oligarchical form. None do.”
And how many people are prepared to fight and die for a company or shareholders? How many people identify themselves, their language, their history and their relations with their fellow man through private sector firms? How many cities do private sector firms own with their own civic engagement? There is a reason why actual dictatorships set up to try to rescue a country usually come from the either landowners or the army and almost never from businessmen or private interests.
As for the substantive history here, I am confused. The author claims “accountable monarchy” but this is obviously different from absolute monarchy. Absolute monarchy was just that, complete untrammeled rule by one individual. This, I would add was much rarer than the author seems to think. Neither the Roman Empire (at least pre-Diocletian) nor Medieval Europe was run by absolute monarchs. The concept of absolute monarchy only really existed after the 16th-17th century, first being associated with the Catholic counterreformation and then later the Enlightenment – that is the pre-liberal Enlightenment represented by Voltaire or Bentham – who wanted to use the Catholic church’s own methods against itself.
Now the author claims Henry VII was an absolute monarch. He was not, he was deeply embedded in a web of feudal relations that required consensus and political skill to do anything. Kings that lacked this, think John or Richard III tended to have a sticky end. The great authority that he did had came through a web of mutual social obligations that extended from many small communities whose job was not to make money but to feed and defend themselves, vastly different to the impersonal management of a board whose main interest is constant economic expansion.
He then seems to think Henry VIII existed within this, but actually his attempts to move towards absolutism tended to be strongly resisted. Yarvin seem to hold courts in disregard but the system of assize courts and the permation of common law was one of the main ways through which regal authority was expressed in England. Common law was part of the heritage of English life. Parliament itself was a reflection of property rights, of a way in which landowners resisted the King’s tendency to expropriate and tax everything they could in order to fund wars – and even this had ancient roots in the witenagemot. Yarvin seems to think monarchies will lean naturally towards a libertarian model, but I don’t really see evidence of this in the historical records, property rights were nearly always defended against absolutist power, and absolutism went with state expropriation, as the dissolution of the monasteries clearly showed. The only monarchy that moved in a resolutely libertarian direction was the late Austro-Hungarian empire but this was both highly constitutional and decentralised. Of course he hints all was not well by somehow claiming Walsingham represented a nascent deep state. Two points a) this was very much a private activity vastly different to modern state bureaucracies and b) without Walsingham Elizabeth I very likely would have ended up being killed by a Catholic regicide and supplanted by Mary Queen of Scots or Phillip II of Spain. As for seeing George I as some great turning point, given the authors contempt for the Christian element of legitimism this is odd, because in reality there was little constitutional change between Anne and George I, the main change was entirely in the hereditary principle of the monarchy and its theological underpinnings.
Now the author makes it clear his interest in monarchy is based not on Christian traditional kingship – his references to Cromwell as a ‘monarch’ or his dismissal of traditional forms of monarchy make this clear. But then the author seems confused about what the main goal of such a monarchy? It seems either to be that a) it is there to promote minarchism and unrestrained business capitalism or b) to promote general culture – which he then vulgarly associates with filmmaking that I think is a token of his ‘neomania’.
But to consider each in case. The most successful merchant nations were not absolute monarchies. The Phonecians were oligarchical monarchies split into city states, whose colonies were largely self-governing. The Dutch were a oligarchy of merchants without a strong central monarchy. The Venetians were an oligarchical republic. Many real absolute monarchies – Imperial China, the Russian Empire, ancien regime France were economic backwaters and recognised as such even by writers in their own times.
But then to consider b. The points where Western civilisation flourished most were in ancient Athens, a oligarchic demography, without a central court, or Renaissace Tuscany, a patchwork of oligarchic republics that found itself in a sweet spot of anarchy between Papal and Imperial authority. Neitehr we centralised absolute monarchies.
Equally the Roman empire started as a Republic and later became a limited semi-monarchy until Diocletian. Its zenith was not under an absolute monarchy, indeed it became an absolute monarchy at a stage when it was declining both culturally and economically. Equally if we are to regard the minarchic argument for monarchy then it seems to me to a) fail to explain why monarchies won’t go for a conservative communitarianism – which the author seems to have missed entirely from his shallow readings of Carlyle – expressed in Gregory XVI banning trains to prevent liberal ideas and a bourgeois economy or the old Sultan of Yemen in the 60s banning electricity for much the same reason.
I am also not convinced about the supposed merits of high centralisation. The author uses weasel words (‘early Tudor’) to get out of assigning Shakespeare or Marlow to the great cultural flourishing that was not based on a royal court. Higly centralised states are fragile in the long run, one of the reasons the Roman Empire survived for so long was that it was not run as an overcentralised court.
Indeed his reference to Uber at at the end seems to suggest he misses entirely the reason why people resent the elite, not because they are bureaucrats or preventing progress for anarchic capitalist firms to do what they want but because they are deracinated global figures tied to money and business (and whatever sells best, hence their hawking of Woke) more than they are to the culture and values of the deep historical communities they belong to – that Yarvis apparently once wanted to split up or rationalise anyway.
Another point – the author seems to idealise technological advancement and yet at the same also idealising the world prior to the bourgeois system of government. Again, I am confused here, because if we consider the massive grow in wealth and population this is almost entirely a phenomenon of the last 250 years and went hand in hand with a more bourgeois structure of society based around property ownership and distributed capital accumulation. Parliamentarism was a manner in which capital and landownership was recognised. Only after the early 20th century with universal suffrage did this change – and one might note that socities with high levels of property ownership are more stable (something which is in reverse in many modern democracies) – a fact recognised by Franco and Pinochet but also Thatcher as the best antidote to socialism, probably because these socities represent the closest approximation to a capital owning society. Absolute dictatorships likely will have the vaneer of being stable but are also much more likely to be engulfed by sudden and irreversible crisis as one saw in Russia, or Persia in the 20th century. If the author was arguing for Benedict option style anti-growth and consolation in Christian spiritual communians maybe his argument would be more convincing.
Finally the case could be made that 21st century technology isn’t compatible with democracy. I admit that this could well be true, we’ll see. I’ll add that the same argument was made by Marxists, Fascists, Anarchists and other discontents in the late 19th century and early 20th century, that were given a great fillip in the aftermath of the WW1 when the increasingly bourgeois constitutional monarchies of Europe were held culpable for the slaughter. And yet, somehow parliamentary democracy, perhaps due to its economic advantage (and yet is this a coincidence?) managed to prevail against a Nazi new European order based on the absolutism principle of fuhrerprinzip and then later against hald of Europe being ruled by an government of an oligarchic committee inflicting economic totalitarianism. So I am not sure we can take as read that our system will collapse so soon – I suppose I may say I detect an element of wishfulfillment in the author for this, he may have abandoned the Trotskyism of his parents but seems to share its chilliastic hope for a total collapse and the re-ordering of all world politics to its ‘natural end’. Of course our constitutional monarchy will collapse one day, as does everything human, but then so will any absolute monarchy. Human history is a constant cycle of this, just the when and where, well I would humbly suggest that “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons”. And still, even when it comes to pass, remember, even in the post-Cold War ‘liberal monopole moment’ there were dissidents, resisters to American domination, and there will be for whatever ideology, system of government exists or constellation of geopolitical power – some men will fight back and thus history will continue for ever.
And even with this, perhaps one can detect reasons why those hoary bourgeois values might be valuable after all. I mean, given that in the hypothetical situation posed by this article the king will be a CEO, a technocratic dictator, only vaguely interested in traditional concepts of Christian kingship, how exactly will this be different than the Chinese system of government, albeit it even more dystopically realised and concentrated in one man? Maybe the author knows this and approves? If we assume the great challenge of our time though is not economic growth but the collapse of meaning and a sense of belonging, won’t the state treating all its citizens as employees just enhance this tendency and alienation? Do we really want a state where people are given social credit scores and enforced approbation of the government? The author seems to envisage that the billionaires and wealth-generators would be left alone and free in this circumstance. Is this good? Or as Roger Scruton once said, maybe the 19th conception, prior to limited liability, whereby business owners were tied to their land and their employees, at least in certain ideal circumstances, has more to recommend itself.
But even if this is a good thing, why exactly would an absolute monarchy specifically go out of its way to protect that class of people anyway? As Putin’s treatment of the oligarchs shows, or now Xi’s crackdown on tech company bosses like Jack Ma, such owners and superwealthy will have none of the guarentees that they can hold or propogate their wealth in such a system without it being expropriated at the whim. Maybe this is what the author refers to by accountability of a board, though one wonders what kind of accountability would exist in a board with Putin as monarch and the silvoski as his ‘board’? Again the author seems to think these people will act like Plato’s guardians but I would suggest that whilst there may well be some good rulers – if for example they are trained in concepts of nobless oblige and have the personality to actually act on it – reality might make these people act collectively in their own interests to the detriment of the economic growth of the whole country. Indeed the private business comparison ignores the very real problem of the ‘agency problem’ that actual private companies have where CEOs and the board act in their own private interest (bonuses etc.) against the interest of the shareholders. When this is avoided it is because the shareholders step in and prevent it, which sounds rather like the hated bourgeois parliamentarianism. And this is with shareholders whereas the author wishes to have a system without shareholders and where short term private interests will just be parlayed into long-term private interests.

Last edited 2 years ago by Sam Sky
Christian Moon
Christian Moon
2 years ago
Reply to  Sam Sky

Bravo. Sound points.

William Shaw
William Shaw
2 years ago

The author of this piece appears to be afflicted with that most common of American beliefs
 that being a world power is the sine qua non of nationhood, and that Britons yearn for their imperial past. I’ve never understood this attitude. It seems rooted in America’s striving for its own imperial greatness and a failure to understand that almost every other country in the world has no interest in emulating it.
In my personal experience no Briton has such delusions of grandeur (though there may be a few ancient whack jobs still around). Most Brits worry about their local community, schools and jobs, they have no dreams of ruling the world and certainly don’t lament the loss of empire.
More to the point, I would be totally against giving any royal the power to make political decisions. The current Prince of Wales is dangerously close to overstepping his bounds, and if he does he will quickly find his wings clipped and the monarchy significantly damaged.

Last edited 2 years ago by William Shaw
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
2 years ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Precisely. You’ve saved me the trouble of articulating those very points.
Whilst Yarvin’s thesis might be of interest to Civics students (as opined earlier), its essentially an exercise in failing to understand the contingency of the power of one individual over all others.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
2 years ago
Reply to  William Shaw

Yarvin is just asking you to identify exactly who is making political decisions under our current dispensation. He claims it can’t be done. We would be better off if instead we could identify who it was, because they could hold then be held responsible. A king is constrained by this accountability, and an absolute king is also secure in his place, so his only interest is the flourishing of his kingdom as a whole rather than the sectional advantage of any one faction.

Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
2 years ago

Any private-sector firm could operate as a republic or other oligarchical form. None do. There are no senates, assemblies or supreme courts in the private sector — let alone anything like the administrative state.

This is not true. There _are_ syndicates, and partnerships especially among professionals. ‘Making partner’ in a profitable law or accounting firm is still a very big deal. And historically the CEO was the servant of the shareholders, who fired them at will. What we have seen over the past 200 years is the gradual upsurption of power from the owner class (share holders) to the executive class, partly by making sure that there the shareholders are small share holders (and things like insurance companies and pension funds, whose basic philosophy is ‘do not bite the hand that feeds you’ and have no interest in setting company policy).
When you get companies where the founders are not crowded out by the new stock purchasers, you find they still have real clout, and do fire CEOs that displease them. The executive class, which sees itself as the ruling class, has worked tirelessly to limit shareholder involvement and power, whenever it can.
Witness the change between a focus on ‘increasing the share price of a corporation’ from the old focus on ‘increasing the amount of dividends’. Sweden still has many old firms which are now in the third and fourth generation since their founding, and whose CEOs are told to focus on dividends. Shares in these companies almost never come onto the market, but I try to buy them every chance I get. Reading the minutes from their meetings is very instructive.
Note that, even here, even in the USA, once a corporation has reached a certain size, the CEO rarely operates as an absolute monarch. The executive as a whole, an oligarchy rules, and often the fights are very bloody at the top.
I am hoping that we are reaching the end date of politicians who are bought and paid for by competing global elites. One way to look at the current mess we are in is as a fight between an older affluent class where wealth is predicated on manufacturing and converting hydrocarbons into wealth and a newer class based on computing, banking, and executive stock options which loves ‘zero carbon’ and often doesn’t actually create wealth — just works out how to allocate it in ways that benefits the new class.
One consequence of this inter-class war is that people who really want to change the world see their best shot at it outside of participating in politics. They don’t want to be the statesman, they want to be the person who owns politicians. They want to be part of the civil service that goes on forever and keeps on dishing out globalism no matter who gets voted in, and so on and so forth.
But a good dose of populism could change this. You just need to convince somebody with a vision beyond ‘suck up to the money so I can get re-elected’ to decide that popular support is the way to get it done. Populism is a dirty word because it really is a threat to absolute and unaccountable power. More people are coming to realise that we need this all the time.

Last edited 2 years ago by Laura Creighton
Elena RodrĂ­guez
Elena RodrĂ­guez
2 years ago

Hi Laura,
I know very little about economics. However, I am convinced that a capitalist system that encourages businesses to compete, in a localised field where the conditions are fair to all under a democratic government within reach of the people, is the best form for an economy.
I liked your point about the problem with companies today being that shares are divided up to the point where few individual shareholders have any real power. Would it be possible, do you think, to have a capitalist system where investments are kept very local? I, for example, would like to invest in local businesses in my area, where I can help them grow but keep an eye on what they are doing. I think a lot of our current problems today stem from globalisation rather than capitalism. If investments were kept local, and governments were truly democratic – bringing in laws as and when they were needed to prevent the exploitation of the area by big international companies and to protect something of great importance to quality of life – local culture and traditions – do you think that we could move to a capitalist and democratic system that is actually to the benefit of everyone?

Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
2 years ago

It’s would be entirely possible to set up and run a share holding company where there was a ‘residence requirement’ in order to be able to invest. Informally, this is done all the time, where groups of investors form to ‘support local initiatives’ with angel funding, private equity, and the like. (Or just a group of people who like making money together through investments.) The problem occurs when the company grows to a certain size and decides it needs a sizeable influx of cash in order to grow further.
The local investors are tapped out — and besides they often specialise in getting new ventures off the ground, not in the care and feeding of the not-so-new-any-more. Thus the company decides that the way to go is to get itself listed on a public stock exchange, so that the offering can be available to everybody. (And there will be lots of pressure to do this from the initial share holders who think of all the money they will make it their stocks double in price, which is not an unreasonable expectation.)
We may be able to do better if we reform ‘capital gains’ taxes and make dividends more attractive than profits on selling shares, which is the reverse of how it works in most countries these days. It won’t necessarily get us more local governance, but it will mean that quietly being excellent at what you do, and generating profits can out perform boom-and-bust cycles, provided you buy in on the bust and sell at or near the top. And it will mean that the original shareholders can pursue a ‘hold the stock, collect the dividends’ strategy rather than only realising gains when they sell shares and thus dilute their ownership.

Last edited 2 years ago by Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
2 years ago

To continue — sorry I had to go to the dentist —
One thing we have now as an investment is ‘mutual funds’ which can be grouped under whatever criteria you like. I’m invested in a ‘New Medical Tech from Sahlgrenksa/Chalmers/University of Göteborg’ which gets me a purchase that is rather local to me. The financial markets are always happy to bundle up things into a mutual fund — provided there is sufficient demand. So if you start demanding a mutual fund of your local businesses, and there are enough of you …. one of these things will be forthcoming, at least if you live in the UK, USA or Germany or anywhere else that prides itself on its financial markets.

Elena RodrĂ­guez
Elena RodrĂ­guez
2 years ago

Hi Laura,
Thanks for your replies. I’m actually extremely ignorant of how banking works. Is what we had in the UK called a ‘building society’ a mutual fund? Here is an article about how members got bribed into changing building societies into banks in the late 1990s: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/sep/29/bradfordbingley.creditcrunch which led, surprise, surprise, to huge international banking companies like Santander benefiting.
We used to have building societies that were very local – there was an independent one in my small town where people used to put their savings. Would this type of thing be a good system to return to in terms of getting people to care more about their local area rather than everyone putting their money into the current globalised investment system that is so out of control?

Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
2 years ago

No. A mutual fund is a bag of stocks managed by somebody (the fund manager), whose job it is to decide what stocks go into the bag. The US Securities and Exchange Commission has a nice writeup here, which is missing the jargon that is more usual problem with learning about such things. Companies such as Vanguard produce them.
https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/investment-products/mutual-funds-and-exchange-traded-1

Russ W
Russ W
2 years ago

Wow, Laura. Well argued.
Perhaps a key element here is that the majority of investors (typically 401k’s, IRAs, and retirement funds) have almost no say in what their money managers do. Blackrock and Vangaurd act as activist investors demanding their agendas be met. This I think is a central problem. By simply creating a way for common investors to provide feedback into this system, e.g., I don’t support your “ESG” obsession, things might improve dramatically?
Thoughts?

Last edited 2 years ago by Russ W
Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
2 years ago
Reply to  Russ W

Agree 100% that Blackrock and Vanguard are a problem. And this undercuts the ‘CEO as absolute monarch’ idea of the article. I remember reading about a company where the employees wanted the company to spend money to move to a more environmentally friendly way of producing or refining something as part of their manufacturing process. (I forget the details. But the engineers at the company who had come up with this new thing wanted to do it.) So they asked the shareholders, and they wanted to do this even more than the employees did. So the CEO, who was less enthusiastic decided, yes, we’ll do this. And immediately got told by Vanguard that they would drop them from all these offerings, and recommend to all and sundry to sell the stock. The CEO caved and the plans were put on hold.
And I thought to myself, Vanguard has way too much influence here.
I cannot help but think that things would improve if companies worried more about making investors happy than making the financial industry pundits happy, combined with having investors being in it more for the dividends than for higher share prices.

Last edited 2 years ago by Laura Creighton
Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
2 years ago

Fascinating article. I’m likely going to have my civics students read this if only to make them argue with it. My favorite line personally is this: “If the monarchy did not exist, Whitehall would function as usual. If Parliament, the Cabinet, and the voters did not exist, Whitehall would function as usual.” Such a succinct summary of current Western governance.

Chelcie Morris
Chelcie Morris
2 years ago

“Monarchy —ideally accountable monarchy, with a board of directors or some other safety mechanism — just works better” – the monarchy was accountable, to the nobles, who were in turn accountable to the monarch. If the monarch became a tyrant the nobles would step in, create factions, and war would break out to quell the problem. It was an active, instead of passive, form of governance.

What happens nowadays in our “democracy”? Nothing at all. Power is behind the scenes and unknown and we have no power to stop it. At least with an absolute monarchy we know who the enemy is. We didn’t even know that the WEF existed until 2020 and they had been operating since the 70’s! We are so passive nowadays because we have no power and we all know it.

An absolute monarchy is the better form of government because it is within the monarch’s best interest to keep their domain within their grasp. A democratic system of government doesn’t care to do so since the power doesn’t reside within the democracy, but the people behind the scenes pulling the strings with no accountablility for their actions, which is why people like Trudeu, Boris, Macron, Jacinda Ardern, President Xi and Biden are all sitting in the pocket of Klaus Schwab.

Last edited 2 years ago by Chelcie Morris
John Stone
John Stone
2 years ago

The espousal by Prince Charles and Prince William of the WEF’s Great Reset policy is surely a constitutional anomaly of gigantic proportions.

Chelcie Morris
Chelcie Morris
2 years ago
Reply to  John Stone

That’s because they have no real power, and were never brought up with the idea of real power or having to control their own domain, thus they easily fall into the trap of utopian ideals that the WEF sponser. If they actually had to manage their own country, like an absolute monarch would, then they would easily see past Schwabs narrative and kick him to the curb where he rightfully belongs.

Rupert Steel
Rupert Steel
2 years ago

Charming. But hopelessly wrong and misconceived. Take this example:’ The Stuarts, alien in nation and suspect in religion, were never secure on the throne. ‘. Well yes, but what about the Tudors, those Welsh arrivistes desperate for a legitimacy they could never quite attain. Monarchs derive their legitimacy from a fount of honour, which can only come from suitable and approved descent. It was for this reason that every one of the wives of Henry VIII was a descendant of His late Majesty King Edward III, the Plantagenet monarch widely regarded as the architect of the modern British state. Henry VIII was driven to ensure that his progeny could claim legitimacy from Plantagenet descent. Nothing has changed.

Richard Woollaston
Richard Woollaston
2 years ago

Strange article!
However on one point Charles III would not get rid of the elites – we would be catapulted even faster into the Great Reset (he is a spokesman for the WEF) the purpose of which is to further the interests of the elites and control the rest of us.

Richard Abbot
Richard Abbot
2 years ago

Well he’s right about one thing (but regards this article maybe only one thing) – democracy doesn’t work. How did we come to believe that the vote of the most stupid, most emotional or most extreme should be equal to that of the person who actually takes time to calmly investigate things? It’s truly absurd, if you think about it.

Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
2 years ago
Reply to  Richard Abbot

The strength of democracy is not that it miraculously produces good government and wise leaders but that it miraculously produces a way to get rid of bad government and foolish leaders without civil war. Generating good leaders, and good choices, has _always_ been a problem.

Last edited 2 years ago by Laura Creighton
Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
2 years ago

The miracle to get rid of Boris is long overdue.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
2 years ago

It miraculously closes off any form of government that doesn’t bankrupt itself by promising the moon and absolution from personal responsibility.

John Shone
John Shone
2 years ago

About the best description ever of the virtue of democracy !

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
2 years ago
Reply to  Richard Abbot

They aren’t necessarily supposed to calmly investigate things. They only need to know what’s good for them and vote for people who propose those things.

Those who calmly analyse, wrote pages, with brilliant statistical analysis, about how Brexit was a bad thing and globalisation is good for the masses. Those masses know enough about economics to understand if you flood a market with unskilled labour, it’s price will go down, and the price of other essentials, like housing, will go up.

Democracy is the only mechanism the lowly have to challenge the elites view of what’s good for them.

Mark Chadwick
Mark Chadwick
2 years ago
Reply to  Richard Abbot

That’s the great thing about democracy. The vote of a white, Northern, working-class racist who’s been kicked around as a “white pig” in a predominantly Asian neighbourhood is worth just as much as that of a middle-class champagne socialist who’s lived a life of privilege among the liberal Metropolitan elites. You can never judge someone else’s life experience based on your own, and democracy levels it all out.

Richard Abbot
Richard Abbot
2 years ago
Reply to  Mark Chadwick

Perhaps its the Metro-elites whose votes shouldn’t be weighed the same as others, insulated as they are from the consequences of their vote.

Ken Shultis
Ken Shultis
2 years ago
Reply to  Richard Abbot

It’s become almost trite, but a quote from our old guide to sanity, William F. Buckley, still holds for me “I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory, than by the Harvard University faculty.” I have said, in a corollary, that we should choose our Representatives like we choose juries, randomly from among a pool of citizens. And forbid the rise of mandarins like Fauci in the bureaucracy. The unitary executive means that effectively we elect a monarch every four years. We just need to trim the power of his servants.

Sam McGowan
Sam McGowan
2 years ago

The author fell off the boat with his very first paragraph in his comment about Shakespeare and Brownists. He’s implying that the Mayflower (and apparently the Mayflower Compact) is the founding of America. It wasn’t – there were already British subjects in America and had been for over a decade and they had already established local government. The Mayflower passengers didn’t even found Massachusetts; it was founded by Puritans – the Mayflower passengers weren’t Puritans, they were Separatists and hated by the Puritans – who began arriving in Massachusetts soon after the Mayflower mistakenly landed at what they called Plymouth. It was the Virginia colonists who rebelled against King George and eventually led to the British decision to give up on the American colonies and concentrate on Canada.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
2 years ago

an excellent piece of polemic!… One small point: certainly in my day, albeit nigh 50 years ago, soldiers of The Household Division, Foot Guards and Household Cavalry, swore allegiance to The Sovereign only, whereas all other military personnel signed to ” Queen and country”…..

Matthieu Peel
Matthieu Peel
2 years ago

There is no political system that can be a silver bullet to ensure peace and happiness forever. Looking for the perfect form of government is an illusion. It is in human nature that there will always be bad apples to corrupt and pervert even the best designed systems, and a system able to nudge human nature and make us invariably virtuous would be the most dreadful form of totalitarianism. An absolute monarch could too easily be dumb, self interested, lazy or influenced by a minion and it would look like roulette russe at every new crowning. Therefore, instead of following foolish blue prints to earthly paradise we need to make do with what we have and by this standard I don’t think constitutional monarchy and Elizabeth II have done badly.
Parliamentary monarchy has persistently provided (and balanced) security and personal freedom to the inhabitants of this country for centuries. There hasn’t been any civil war, and much less abuse of civil rights than anywhere else in the world, for 300 years. Just look at the bloody contemporary histories of most of our neighbours who have all seen dictatorships or revolutions (sometimes both) in the last 200 years. I think we can partly thank the figure of the King/Queen for protecting us from this staggering violence. Their popularity and constitutional roles make it harder for any potential dictator to seize power out of the hands of Parliament, thereby guaranteeing some sort of stability to the democratic edifice. Yes, unaccountable billionaires and bureaucrats have way too much power, and people spend way too much time whining on Twitter rather than working for their democracy and communities, but would you rather have that or risk some sort of hereditary Xi Jinping dynasty ? At least we can still formally replace our leaders when it becomes obvious that they are incompetent or dangerous. This may not guarantee the best leaders, but it sure avoids that the worst ones remain too long in power, and the Queen would have the constitutional capacity to thwart a coup if she wanted. So the system has two built in security levers: elections and the Sovereign.
Turning to Elizabeth II herself, I don’t think she pales in comparison with her homonym. What other head of State can boast such a broad support from the population ? Most people like her, and some are indifferent. We can’t say that of Biden or Macron, who deeply divide their political opinions. In the UK, for the last 70 years, the head of State has not polarised its electorate. The monarchy is home to everyone of us, because the Queen is ever-present but always neutral, a warm presence that unites us all, except some fringes of the far left. She dutifully accepts the advice of her ministers, themselves elected representative of the people. With so many potential levers of power built in the Constitution, how many people would behave so decently and neutrally for 70 years ? With so much attention and decorum, how many people would manage to make their office about their subjects, and not about themselves ?
I wouldn’t place my bets on Charles and Meghan for this. Elizabeth II represents 300 years of history of a Sovereign that has embodied our nation whilst discreetly balancing our democratic institutions and leading us peacefully to where we are today. When she leaves us, the bar will have been raised very high for her followers, and a symbol of decency and democracy connecting us with our past will disappear, ushering us into times that are far more discomforting. So yes, God save the Queen !

Last edited 2 years ago by Matthieu Peel
Shawn Eng
Shawn Eng
2 years ago

Just popped in to offer a summer reading list:
The Populist Delusion by Neema Parvini
Nemesis: The Jouvenelian vs. the Liberal Model of Human Orders by C.A. Bond
After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State by Paul Gottfried
Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy by Carl Schmitt
Political Theology by Carl Schmitt
The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt
Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government by Christopher H. Achen & Larry M. Bartels
On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth
Suicide of the West: The Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism by James Burnham
Why Liberalism Failed by Patrick Deneen

Arnold Grutt
Arnold Grutt
2 years ago
Reply to  Shawn Eng

You might add ‘The Demon in Demoracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies’ by Ryszard Legutko

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
2 years ago
Reply to  Shawn Eng

I would also add The Servile Mind by Kenneth Minogue.

Norman Powers
Norman Powers
2 years ago

Public companies are somewhat democratic. Shareholders are the voters and can / do depose the CEO.

David Jennings
David Jennings
2 years ago
Reply to  Norman Powers

Corporate boards of directors – the ones annually elected (in practice by extremely poor shareholder-voter turnout and often voted by large funds, not individual shareholders) – certainly can come in the flavours of democracy, oligarchy, or Whitehall. But CEOs (unless also major shareholders) are not absolute monarchs: just ask Parag Agrawal soon to be formerly of Twitter.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
2 years ago
Reply to  David Jennings

The only right of boards/investors versus the CEO tends to be removal though, which is Yarvin’s point. While in post the CEO is pretty unconstrained: he typically has more power over the board than vice versa.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
2 years ago

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert did have an extraordinary and visionary brilliance in working with their politicians, and influencing with their own thoughts, the change and re-construction of a society and its ” values” so as to embrace and encompass the change from an agrarian to an industrial and commercial nation, post the increase of the Great Reform act voter franchise… and avoid revolution and encompass entrepreneurialism and new wealth creation… AND socio democratic order and stability… never seen before or repeated since- Had Victoria lived until 1914, there would not have been a First World War…

Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
2 years ago

On the contrary, let’s get started on the Glorious Revolution. The Dutch invade Devon, install William of Orange, unroll Dutch Finance as the Bank of England and fight the Second Hundred Years War to put the French in their place. And they only ran the National Debt up to 250 percent of GDP (if there had been GDP at the time).
What kind of government do you call that?
PS. Yarvin’s greatest quote of all time: “there is no politics without an enemy.”

Last edited 2 years ago by Christopher Chantrill
Lloyd DeVincenzi
Lloyd DeVincenzi
2 years ago

He must have taken the concept from Schmitt’s friend-enemy distinction: what the political is reducible to, in his view.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
2 years ago

Dutch oligarchs though, not monarchs. Which is the author’s point I think.

Petro Frunze
Petro Frunze
2 years ago

The author mistakes Elizabeth II for Chauncey Gardner, when in fact she is the Oracle at Delphi.

Jeff Carr
Jeff Carr
2 years ago

An interesting vision of an alternative approach to our current institutional malaise.
The brief analysis of the present failings in our democratic processes highlights the increasing autonomy of our public servants and lack of influence of politicians. I believe this is indeed the case as we have the Blair generation of servants occupying senior roles at odds with the desires of their political leaders.
This generation of servants has grown up with the imposition of regulations and instructions from the European Commission taking precedence and restricting the actions of nationally elected politicians. It seems perfectly logical in their mind to countermand their political leaders.
I think, for many, the 2019 government was elected to confront the status quo prevailing in Parliament and the Public Sector.
In their failure to do this, the author is looking at an alternative, if fanciful, way of achieving the necessary change.
To my mind, we still need to address the failings of our public servants through democratic change. The Labour, Lib Dem and SNP parties are the parties of the existing public sector establishment and my jury is out on whether the Conservative Party has been captured. The leadership of the Conservatives need to remember the drivers of Workington Man that formed the basis of their 2019 election strategy. If they do not, the London-based Public Sector Elites will continue to rule with impunity.

Christian Moon
Christian Moon
2 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Carr

Not sure what further evidence you need wrt the Conservatives being just as much captured by this public sector elite as the other parties. Trouble is it’s not London-based, it’s global/or at best US-based.

R Wright
R Wright
2 years ago

An interesting, if unfocussed, post-liberal perspective.

F Hugh Eveleigh
F Hugh Eveleigh
2 years ago

A most interesting article much of which resonates with me but by no means all. Britain could well become an important player on the world stage should political governance go more hand in hand with monarchical guidance. The Queen after all is the best known and most respected public figure for reasons manifold. She is the stabilising influence on our governance, the Queen in Parliament. I don’t deny that the office could be more authoritarian and I dare consider this would be quite a good thing if it kept political government more in check. But we do not know what is talked about when a prime minister has his weekly audience and to stray from being a ‘constitutional’ monarch has many pitfalls. But we cannot blame the Queen for the condition of the UK – that is political.
The Prince of Wales talks a lot – not always to the delight of all the people but he assures us that when king he will cease his spoken musings. The extraordinary fact that of the 16 most stable democracies in the world according to Freedom House rankings, 11 of them are monarchies, 4 of which have Elizabeth II as head of state, says much. The UK itself is not in the top 16 and that should concern a few who can do something about it. Charles could consider this a challenge – to bring the UK into the first rank. He at least would have a chance of success.
The times are a’changin and the education of the young appears to have been woked into insignificance with too much emphasis on the ego and the bruised ‘me’. Not much use for a country seeking new outlets and challenges so until education returns to its historic role then we may be doomed for even longer. Even the younger royal family members are embracing aspects of the emotional journey. Maybe they feel it but maybe they feel they should be seen to feel it. Perhaps the answer is an halfway house with the dominant foot firmly planted in care, caution and reticence.
Social and mass media’s prevalence is more often than not an hindrance to societal cohesion. Knowledge there is much of but wisdom far less so. An older monarch can, and in the case of the Queen does, bring calm to the noise of media. This is valuable when used sparingly. People need reminding that they are passing through life at a certain time and that it is the past and future together which sandwich the now. The role of a sovereign with over a 1000 years of past is intangible but hugely significant as no other system of governance but monarchy has its roots so deeply structured.
Yes, our society is flawed but it has never been otherwise. Striking the balance is difficult but not impossible with the right people at the helm. At least in a democracy protected by the Crown there is a chance.

Arnold Grutt
Arnold Grutt
2 years ago

It was announced some time ago that if Prince Charles should occupy the Throne he would adopt the name ‘King George’ (it’s one of his given names anyway) So he would not be ‘King Charles III’.

Sam Sky
Sam Sky
2 years ago
Reply to  Arnold Grutt

I don’t think it was announced; more accurately it was conjectured by the media based on a few leaks give the associations of the name Charles.

Last edited 2 years ago by Sam Sky
Rachel Taylor
Rachel Taylor
2 years ago

A wonderfully amusing article with some very perceptive points. We do, in effect, have 3 branches of State: public employment (including the BBC); legislature; and executive. The public employment branch is by far the more powerful.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
2 years ago

From Anglo Saxon times the Monarch ruled through consulation and consent. England had far less serfdom than the Continent and that under Danelaw even less. The first charter between Monarch and the English people was in 1020 AD between Ethelred the Unready From 410AD the Roman Catholic Church transferred the concept of the Divine of Rights Kings from the Roman Emperors to the Franks, Ostrogoths, etc.
Divine Right of Kings only occurrd under the Stuarts which led to the Civil War.
Absolute monarchy existed under the Normans from 1066 to 1100 AD but William agreed to rule via Anglo Saxon Laws; he also banned the sale of people.
Henry I introduced the Charter of Liberties which re-introduced The Laws of Edward the Confessor and removed some Norman Laws.
Magna Carta started a century of movement of power from the Monarch to voters. By 1295 AD a House of Commons of about 270 plus knights and burgesses represented 4 million people. Taxation which mainly was raised from wool was voted upon by the MPs. Edward The Third said ” That which affects all must be consulted by all”.
Post 1689, Parliament was sovereign.
The Monarch and the Parliamentary System has evolved by learning from mistakes. Ultimately it is based upon common sense and reason: keep what works and change what does not. Accept people make mistakes, encourage fair play and honesty and shun dishonesty.
A Constitutional Monarch can only survive it is seen but not heard and the Prime Minister consults with them in private in total secrecy. By being Head of the Armed forces, the monarch deprives the Prime Minister of absolute power. The Monarch has the duty to ask the Prime Minister to reconsider their position if needed.
The British Constitutional Monarchy can help in ensuring all are heard and preventing democracy does not become a bureaucratic oligarchy.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
2 years ago

This is a well-known script: “The system is rotten. Those in power serve themselves, not the people. No hope of improvement. We need to get rid of the entire governing class, put in a single man with absolute power, and let him select a new elite beholden to the new system. Then we can move on to – well – something different and better.” Lenin followed that, so did Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, but at least those had some original political ideas going in. I would put Fidel Castro, Juan Peron, and Hugo Chavez in the same box, just minus the original ideas. In this version it sounds less monarchical than Trumpian, the dreams of omnipotence of a frustrated toddler.

Last edited 2 years ago by Rasmus Fogh
Laura Creighton
Laura Creighton
2 years ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

Yes. I knew this one as ‘the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship’. If the proponent can demonstrate to me that he has a corruption-proof plan for only generating benevolent dictators, I’d be really interested in letting him run with this one for a while and see how it works out. Otherwise, our past experience with far-from-benevolent dictators makes those of us who have read history be absolutely certain that we don’t want to go there.

Last edited 2 years ago by Laura Creighton
Michael Furse
Michael Furse
2 years ago

Entertaining. But you miss a key point. Whilst we, the Brits, don’t have an absolute monarchy, you guys, the US (and arguably the French) do. It’s an elected absolute monarchy in both cases – de Gaulle’s Fifth Republic was a massive power grab which has so far been undiluted. It’s slightly more nuanced across the pond, as while both US Houses have continued to chip away at the powers of the executive, the US constitution was meant to operate in an inefficient way to prevent the abuse of power. Tell that to the recipients of US offensive might since WW2….. .

mary moretti
mary moretti
2 years ago

A monarch, as in Britain is part of the deep state, QE2 regularly attended Bilderberg (sp?) Charles is one of Schwab’s useful idiots. Queen Victoria supported the confederacy because she hoped to retake at least the southern US. The Marxist pig bankers that pull QE2’s imbecilic strings are the brothers of the Marxist pig bankers that have controlled the US economy via the Fed and controlling democrats and RINOs. One of their ancestors Simon Baruch cofounder the kkk, and his son helped fund the assassination that lead to WWI, then demanded the conditions that helped cause WWII and are now pushing us into WWIII and not just via Biden and European despots, but via tools like you. They helped fund the bolshevik revolution It’s been more than apparent that the disease that is Jug Ears the Prince of Wales shares your opinion and plans to impose an absolute monarchy, or thinks will be one in his favor by doing what his disease of an uncle, the nazi sympathizer Edward VIII (I think 8th) never got a chance to do, hand British sovereignty and all rights, property everything over to Fuhrer Klaus Schwab. You closeted fascists might be right that many in your readership are cloth eared, and not skilled in clear linear thinking, but not all people are so dim. Like Jug Ears, do you think rights exist in a dictatorship (which is what absolute monarchy is) do you think people are ignorant of the fact absolute monarchy was rested from a despots hands, not by peasants but by barons, because even people like them with some power were oppressed by the despotic monarch. They lived with wonder when their turn would come up. My 7 times great grandfather Josiah is one of my ancestors who fought in the revolutionary, and I, a woman would quite happily do the same. I’ve long wondered if like the Spectator, Unherd is closeted Marxist, whether Leninist lefty or Trotskyite neocon both are globalists thanks for confirming it.

Andrew Schofield
Andrew Schofield
1 year ago
Reply to  mary moretti

We all need to read The Brotherhood by Stephen Knight to understand why society is totally corrupt.

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
2 years ago

Absolute nonsense of the first order. The CEO of a company runs, at most, 0.0001% of the global population and does so only in a very small subset of human activities. They don’t have the ability to control most things. So a bit of limited autocracy doesn’t have totalitarianism across all of society.
Politics is about the rules and regulations for absolutely everyone. It’s entirely inappropriate for the rules and regulations for absolutely everyone to be at the personal whim of an autocratic, unelected individual, most of whom in UK history at least were blood-curdling, murdering megalomaniacs. The vast majority of genocidal wars in Western History were due to the egos of unelected monarchs locking horns. A total disgrace and an absolute reason for ridding the world of their powers.
And then you have the inbreeding of monarchies. Look at all the genetic diseases that emerged in monarchies due to treating 99.9999% of humankind as untermenschen, not to be bred with.
The writer of this article is clearly uneducated, unprincipled or both.
But I guess free speech means that even the unprincipled must have the right to have their say…..

Martin Smith
Martin Smith
1 year ago

Yes, we have a ceremonial monarch and a ceremonial parliament. So WHO does rule? Jokes aside do we even have a clue?

Scott Anderson
Scott Anderson
2 years ago

Provocative at best.
A governance model based on Rule of Law and Inalienable rights is distinct from Monarchies, Oligarchies, and “Democracies”. It’s how America lasted 250 years. The alliance between Monarchs and Marxists united against their common enemy is evident, particularly as Canzuk develops.
https://thefoundingproject.com/republic-versus-democracy/

Last edited 2 years ago by Scott Anderson
John Riordan
John Riordan
2 years ago

Erm, what?

old guy
old guy
2 years ago

“For example, diversity and inclusion are among Elizabeth Windsor’s core principles whereas Elizabeth Tudor was a racist. But we need not accept Elizabeth I’s prehistoric racial theories to find her political insights relevant. The past, without being perfect, can usefully criticise the present.” Moldbug’s obsession with turning the US into a Monarchy seems like harmless autism, and he’s unwilling to break with the establishment on any other issue.

Madeline piper
Madeline piper
2 years ago

The King is right there, on the inauguration podium. The President hands him the Bible and the nu

Last edited 2 years ago by Madeline piper
Mark Parker
Mark Parker
2 years ago

A benevolent kindly monarchy may be the best form of government, but there has been far and few examples to ever exist for any length of time. Power will corrupt and absolute power will eventually corrupt absolutely.

Fafa Fafa
Fafa Fafa
2 years ago

Interesting article, thought (and emotion) provoking but I think it is more a fanciful thought experiment (what if we imagine… kind) than a strongly held serious opinion. I think that because in the last paragraphs the tongue is clearly starting to protrude into the cheek. For a social critic, the idea of an enormous transatlantic Hovercraft saving us from our powerlessness is similar to a prisoner fantasizing about a good fairy popping open the cell door.

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
2 years ago

“The King is right there, on the inauguration podium. The President hands him the Bible and the nuclear football. He takes command and the President calls an Uber. From the river, a deep roar — a corps of Royal Marines, on enormous transatlantic Hovercraft, is cruising in formation up the Potomac
”
What if Charles III actually can’t be trusted with the nuclear football or managing the elites because he is so corrupt and knows nothing about nuclear deterrence, and screws up the country just as bad as or perhaps even worse than any president before him- only now he has autocratic rule under the system of absolute monarchy which makes it hard to remove him from his throne. And since the succession in absolute monarch are very often hereditary, he’ll be passing it down to Charles IV who may be even more inept but got it because he’s related to Charles III, something you would call in the context of a company ‘nepotism’ i.e. the CEO’s incompetent son got a job in the company just because he is related to the CEO, then ad infinitum in the context of an absolute monarchy.
I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree with Yarvin’s monarchist fantasy, as it smells like a recipe for disaster for me.

Diane Merriam
Diane Merriam
1 year ago

The problem is that absolute monarchy and accountable monarchy are polar opposites. If you are an absolute monarch you are not accountable to anyone, which is why so few places have absolute monarchies any more. It’s the luck of the draw as to whether you get a good one or a bad one and there’s nothing anyone else can do about it. An accountable monarch is just a place filler, often not worth their keep. A good one can do good things. And again, it’s the luck of the draw as to whether you get a good one or a bad one and there’s nothing anyone else can do about it.
The world seems to be trending to elected monarchs, but once a bad enough one is elected, the following elections aren’t really elections anymore.
As far as I can tell, there is *no* political scheme that can actually “work” over extended periods of time simply because human nature is what it is. There is a portion of people who want power, power to control what other people do. Anything political is a magnet to those types. Even if they’re kept in check for a while, given enough time those checks can and do get worn away.

Walter Koehler
Walter Koehler
1 year ago

I want money for the time spent reading this hogslop.

Evan Heneghan
Evan Heneghan
2 years ago

Some opinions should remain unherd.

Dr. G Marzanna
Dr. G Marzanna
1 year ago

I’m coming round to the idea of absolute monarchy.
a country that can willingly vote for Boris Johnson as prime minister and can vote again and again for Jacob rees-mogg or Jeremy Corbyn as their Representatives in Parliament really do not deserve to exercise the Freedom of the vote
at least with an absolute monarch they have some sense of responsibility because they have to sit there day after day, year after year, decade after decade with this country, instead of a quick five-year in and out, enrich oneself and then hit the after dinner speaking circuit.

Rick Abrams
Rick Abrams
2 years ago

The first sentence shows that the author is an ignorant *^%. He does not even know that republics exist. That’s like denying hat physics is a science because one has only studied chemistry and biology. On the other hand, if I had wasted my time to read the entire thing, it could be a giant put-on; another Modest Proposal.