Curtis Yarvin’s New Post Favoring (absolute) Monarchy I interpret Yarvin’s argum

Curtis Yarvin’s New Post Favoring (absolute) Monarchy
https://t.co/V4crM7UBxJ
I interpret Yarvin’s argument, as I generally do all his arguments in this vein, as an admission of failure to understand the problem of contemporary governance, and discover and articulate a solution to it.

While (you won’t agree) a republic (rule of law) with universal enfranchisement (mass democracy) appears to have been the failed experiment that the ancients warned us of, and while the rigidity of the US constitution and resulting houses of government have provided greater stability than the european parliamentary systems, that does not mean that we should abandon rule of law, the republic, participatory government, in favor of authoritarianism, or that we cannot, as our anglo ancestors have repeatedly demonstrated, simply change the constitution to correct for our failed optimism, and the sedition against our civilization, culture, people and institutions by the repetition of the christian destruction of the ancient world this time in the pseudoscientific method of the marxist sequence of seditions by false and impossible promise from the laws of scarcity, human behavior, and natural selection.

It may take, as have the english revolution, and the american revolution, a threat of or escalation to conflict to do so but our system is not predicated upon personalities but rules encoded in law and the activism of the population to hold the state and those seditionists that undermined us accountable.

We can, quite easily restore the monarchy as ‘outside the law in restoration of the law’ and achieve the same ends. And we can quite easily state the law with such precision and defended by such institutions that it is criminal for participants in government to even try to evade it.