A Neo-Reactionary Case for Joe Biden? Not Likely! By Charles Taylor (Florida)

Here is a point of view that readers have probably not seen covered before, by Curtis Yarvin, is a neo-reactionary monarchist who is anti-democracy. He is part of the Dissent right, and apparently the so-called "Dark Enlightenment." It is a critique of our type of political orientation, let alone the mainstream. It generates controversy, and "hits" I suppose, as there have been critics of democracy since Plato, and at present, democracy faces hard times with the young generation, who are losing faith.

But Yarvin's latest thing is that Joe Biden, and not Trump, should become an absolute monarch, or as we like to call them, dictator, in charge of the entire government. The idea is that Biden will go more to the Right, while Trump, if given absolute power will go to the Left.

This idea has received serious discussion in so-called intellectual Dissent Right circles, which shows to my mind how flawed the position is. Just deal with basics. Forget for the moment that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that the type of extreme centralism proposed by Yarvin, failed under communism, and under dictatorships of the past; they last a little while then crumble.

What possible reason is here for believing that Joe Biden would go to the Right if given more power? Forget again that Biden is senile and that probably Obama is running the show for the elites pulling his strings. Biden has moved to essentially annihilate the US in favour of communist China, and has pushed an open borders immigration policy upon America. Even given another term, he would destroy America totally. To suppose that he does a 180-degree turn is just plain foolish. I would not be surprised if Yarvin, and even Biden's next grand idea, is to surrender to communist China as part of the absolute monarchy of Emperor Xi!

Some people just have too much time on their hands!

https://www.unz.com/article/curtis-yarvins-neoreactionary-case-for-a-biden-monarchy/

"Neo-reactionary Monarchist, Curtis Yarvin, makes the case not just for the re-election of Biden/Harris but to "put Joe Biden entirely in charge of the government." Yarvin basically advocates for Joe Biden to become an absolute monarch. Yarvin has remained a lifelong Democrat, even though the media has smeared him as a right-wing fascist. However, he adds "Or Donald Trump. Or whoever else wins the election. With no checks and balances. That's right."

Yarvin argues that Biden would no longer care about liberal opinion and, thus would pivot to the Right. He also says that if granted absolute power, Trump would become more liberal, as he no longer has to pander to conservatives. Yarvin is probably right that wokeness and culture war issues would be resolved if Democracy were abolished. Yarvin is also right that Democrats are more competent at enacting their agenda than Republicans and that conservatives are losers with little to no elite attributes.

Yarvin predicts that Biden, as an absolute monarch, would end state political repression as "Once any power triumphs completely, it no longer has any enemies," and thus will make peace with former adversaries. While Yarvin gives the example of America's relative benevolence towards the defeated Germans and Japanese, after WWII, he glosses over the Soviet's brutal revenge against Germany, the Communist Revolution, and countless other historical examples of new totalitarian regimes that brutally purged their former adversaries. If granted absolute power, Biden would almost certainly persecute his opponents. …

Yarvin also assumes that a hypothetical King Biden would not have the Deep State dictating his terms, which is nonsense, as dictators and monarchs still rely upon the loyalty of an apparatus. Many Royal Courts became bureaucratic, such as the late-stage French aristocracy before the Revolution.

Despite the Uni-Party, gridlock and political polarization in US politics can be good, as far as preventing bad policies from being enacted. In contrast, Canada and the UK, which have much stronger technocratic establishment centers, are worse as far as open borders, austerity, and the suppression of dissent. Yarvin also makes a good point that the regime needs to be honest with its subjects. Mass democracy does not allow for that but rather gaslights people that they matter politically when they don't matter. …

Yarvin points out "Aristotle's basic principle that no form of government suits all peoples in all times." Mass Democracies and especially multi-ethnic democracies tend to revert to autocracy, as no constituency can get their needs met democratically. However, the solution is not to abolish democracy but rather to have democracy serve constituencies on a smaller scale or to be radically decentralized. For instance, a confederation of city-states or semi-autonomous zones.

A counterpoint to neo-reaction is that America's political system has become much worse as it has become less democratic and more of an oligopoly. America's golden age from the 1950s to 1980s, when the middle class was at its peak, was much more democratic. Not to mention that California is much worse off under one-party rule.

Yarvin is critical of anti-CRT activist Chris Ruffo, on the grounds that as an activist Ruffo just protests without addressing power dialects. However, both Yarvin and Ruffo offer critiques of politics and society, but come short at offering any solutions nor have a coherent program to reform society. While I am inclined to say that Yarvin is brilliant at describing the mechanisms of power, there are major intellectual flaws with his thesis. He seems to worship power for the sake of power rather than valuing the caliber of those with power. Like Richard Spencer, as a Nietzschean, he respects power, and thus bows to the current neoliberal elite."