Yarvin's "Tim Cook" Monarchy
Monarchy and its origins.
Curtis Yarvin promotes monarchy as a “big red button.” Monarchy represents a “total reset” of society. It would burn through and ride the wave of youth nihilism, it would capture all the bourgeois loyalists to the regime who cannot help but follow authority, and it would make America work every bit as well as our crowning jewel, Apple.
Yarvin’s “monarchy” is hyper-modern political schizophrenia, mashing together opposites. Kanye West recently attempted something similar, asking, “What if we combined Nick Fuentes with rap?” Yarvin asks, “What if we combined Elizabeth I with Tim Cook?” Yarvin revels in the clash of contradictions, but like Kanye, this contrarianism generates interest without generating solutions.
Yarvin’s three favorite American leaders — Hamilton, Lincoln, and FDR — are all syncretists. Sycretism extreme left-wing elements (Thomas Paine, Abolitionism, and 1930s Communism) and marshals them toward imperial ends. This is what Caesar accomplished with the Populares, what Napoleon accomplished with the Revolution, and what Stalin accomplished with the Bolsheviks. Mussolini and Hitler both redirected left-wing energy into the right-wing. These men had to defeat the left, while at the same time appealing to it and grabbing hold of it.
The problem for Yarvin is that the term “monarchism” defeats and inverts the purpose of syncretism. Syncretism utilizes left-wing branding, imagery, associations, and connotations and subverts or captures left-wing sentiment through a presentation of “genuine” and “authentic” politics. It is necessary to be a man of the people, for social justice, for equality, and for futurism. In no case did any of these men represent themselves as conservatives or traditionalists, looking backward or seeking retrogression. That is despite the fact that, with hindsight, we recognize that each of them accomplished a “reigning in” of left wing forces.
Each of these men stood at the heart of, or infiltrated, or stole the thunder of left-wing revolutionary movements of their time, at least superficially and aesthetically. Caesar was among the Populares, Napoleon was a Jacobin, Hamilton was a founding father, Lincoln was associated with Radical Republicans, FDR hired communists, Mussolini started as a socialist, Hitler called himself a socialist, Stalin was a Bolshevik, and so on. Following this trend, American syncretism will not proceed anew from conservatism, monarchism, traditionalism, the Republican Party, libertarianism, Nietzscheanism, elitism, scientific racism, or anything of the right. It will, at least superficially and aesthetically, be cloaked in some branding of the left, although its ends will diverge from the current regime.
Elon Musk was clearly pursuing this avenue prior to his purchase of Twitter. He established a name for himself by promoting green energy, Reddit culture, and dating Grimes. He was not a Christian, fought fossil fuels, and he really, really loved science. Since the Twitter purchase, Elon has reversed course, attempting to appeal to both antisemites1 and Likud,2 and while even Grimes, a former lady of the left, declared “I happily am proud of white culture.”3
The Warrior Origins of Monarchy
Caesar’s most defining moment, the crossing of the Rubicon, was an act of war. Napoleon came from a long line of warriors. Alexander Hamilton was a soldier and a captain in the Continental Army. Lincoln, although once a pacifist, later won the support of 78% percent of Union soldiers in his 1864 re-election.4 Stalin began his political career as a bank robber, and later became a general in the Red Army. Both Hitler and Mussolini were soldiers, and came to power through paramilitary organizations like the Black Shirts and the Sturmabteilung. FDR was assistant secretary for the navy.
Both FDR and Lincoln had less military experience than the other aforementioned leaders, but both were defined by their decision to bring America to war.
Despite FDR having no military experience, he spent his childhood practicing traditional aristocratic sports, such as riding horses, shooting guns, sailing, tennis, and golf. As secretary of the navy, he pushed America toward war in Europe. Roosevelt quadrupled the size of the navy during WWI, and critically protected the navy's aviation program, which would come to have paramount importance during the Pacific campaign 24 years later. FDR did not have any personal military experience, but succeeded in breaking through American neutrality by sanctioning Japan and providing Lend-Lease aid to Britain and the Soviet Union.
Lincoln was experienced in martial arts, becoming the wrestling champion of his county at age 21. During the Black Hawk War of 1832, Lincoln rose to the rank of captain, but never saw combat. One example of Lincoln’s enduring physical strength was displayed during a campaign speech, when a fight broke out in the crowd. Lincoln ran up to the attacker, grabbed him by the neck, and "threw him twelve feet away."5
The connection between the warrior class and syncretism is unavoidable. This is entirely missing from Yarvin’s vision of “King Tim Cook.” Who is Tim Cook? He is LGBTQ, a bureaucrat, a cat man, inoffensive, non-violent, compliant, pacifistic, weak, feminized, androgynous, conformist, and boring. This is the man who Yarvin offers up as a possible monarch — as the archetypal monarch. In this way, Yarvin either deceives himself or others in ignoring warfare and the warrior class as the fundamental inspiration behind the genesis of monarchy.
Monarchy could, in time, degenerate into the kind of bland eunuchry that Yarvin imagines in “King Tim Cook.” In fact, the eunuch general and minister Narses, employed by Emperor Justinian, is a better analog for the character of Tim Cook than for the archetype of the dynastic founder.
As described in Alamariu’s Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy, founders of new dynasties are of a very different character from eunuchs, bureaucrats, and businessmen. Looking at the European monarchical system in the broadest terms, most European monarchs are descended in one way or another from Charlemagne and the Franks. Prior to the Carolingian dynasty, the origin of the Merovingian dynasty was mythologized as proceeding from the Quinotaur beast.
The origin of Merovech as the son of an illegitimate pairing between a woman and a monster has symbolic implications. It is not unlike the myth of the Turkic Ashina tribe, descended from the progenitor Ashina, who was born from the union between a man and a she-wolf. This itself is strikingly similar to the myth of Romulus and Remus, raised by a she-wolf. Zeus, who was considered the mythological ancestor of most Greek kings, was known in multiple myths to transform into a swan or bull to impregnate human women.
Each of these Greek, Roman, Turkic, and Germanic myths symbolize the anarchic, bestial, and syncretic nature of dynastic formation. According to the thesis of James Frazer in The Golden Bough and Alamariu and Selective Breeding, pre-monarchical societies are ruled by a caste of “elders,” maenads, priests, Brahmin, and shamans. This council of elders, magi, witches, or wise men ruled society according to ancient customs and traditions. Warrior aristocracies did not emerge from within these societies, but rather imposed themselves from the outside.
The invasions of Persia by the Scythians, of Greece by the Dorians, and of Rome by the Trojans may be mythological or not accurate in every detail, but reflect a broader phenomenon of Indo-European invasions. Indo-Europeans mythologize the defeat of snake and earth cults, symbolized especially by the slaying of the dragon. Apollo, Perseus, Herakles, and St George are all examples of the dragon slayer king. The dragon, similar to the Minotaur, is a carnivorous beast which eats human sacrifices. The term “dragon” refers to a matriarchal gerontocracy which engages in human sacrifice, which is “slain” by invading Indo-Europeans.
Over centuries, monarchies can weaken and degenerate, leading to the re-emergence of bureaucracies, gerontocracies, and matriarchies. What prevents this is the act of regeneration which occurs during war. War destroys old dynasties and instantiates new ones. War also sharpens and refreshes the aristocracy.
One cannot understand monarchy and aristocracy without understanding the difference between the warrior, priest, and merchant. A warrior class cannot persist without the practice of war. Between the 12th and 16th century, the kings of Europe stopped going to war. Instead, as documented by Machiavelli, they resorted to hiring mercenaries.
The commercialization of war destroyed the Kshatriya foundations of the European monarchical system and created the foundations of capitalism. All of the elements of capitalism, including the Lombard banking system, the Protestant work ethic, and the confiscation of monastic property occurred during this period.
Monarchy is not differentiated from democracy because of the concentration or centralization of power. The smallest monarchy is the squad, the gang, the mafia. By contrast, democratic institutions influence and control millions or even billions of people. The difference between the two has less to do with the “oneness” of the monarch, or the “singularity” of his personality, and more to do with the origins of aristocracy as a warrior class.
When Yarvin suggests that monarchy could be instantiated through the rule of Tim Cook, he is either willfully misleading or misunderstanding the origins of dynastic foundation of the aristocratic substrate. Yarvin could be lying about monarchy to avoid accusations of fascism. Alternatively, he could legitimately fear the antisemitic implications of fascism, and hopes that a “Tim Cook” monarchy would avoid the violence of dynastic foundation.
In either case, “Tim Cook” monarchism is impractical as a syncretic ideology, which historically involves the redirection of leftist ideology for imperial purposes. A syncretic approach to politics would attempt to infiltrate Democratic and leftist revolutions and redirect them for imperial ends. The liberal support for the war in Ukraine nearly achieved this, with the Canadian parliament giving a standing ovation for a Waffen SS soldier.
The right wing, predictably, has opposed the war in Ukraine, and preferred to root on Russia, viewing Putin as a neo-monarchist. Such an approach is not syncretism of the Napoleonic variety, but rather, represents the failed strategy of Francoism, which attempts to re-create monarchism through conservatism.
Franco failed to re-invigorate the monarchy because he appealed to dead or dying ideologies. North Korea, on the other hand, has used syncretism, using Marxism to justify hereditary monarchy. What distinguishes the virulent and virile monarchy of North Korea with the fake or failing monarchies of other countries is the dominance of the North Korean military over the rest of society. Monarchism without a warrior aristocracy is hollow, and monarchism in name only. This hollowness led to the rise of the Lombard Republics and Freemasonic movements which ultimately ended monarchy in Europe and America.
Without understanding how monarchy originates and declines, monarchism is falsely caricatured as a system of “formalizing” responsibility, or misunderstood as a “CEO.” Spiritually, fascism and Bolshevism have more in common with pre-modern monarchies than either of them have to do with Tim Cook. It is true that modern monarchies saw the rise of capitalism and the merchant class, but by the 16th century, these monarchs left the battlefield and became less relevant. Aristocracies of blood and war gave way to financial aristocracies, such as the Warburgs and Rothschilds.
Yarvin’s attempt to solve political nihilism and introduce a great American presidency in the vein of Hamilton, Lincoln, and FDR is admirable in itself. However, his characterization of monarchy lacks historical depth and on a practical level is self-defeating. The next great presidency will likely not come out of the right wing or from reactionaries, but from a radical liberal like Lincoln or FDR who is willing to use leftist logic for imperial aims. Mass immigration and even the establishment of a North American Union6 may serve as the ultimate catalyst for America’s next imperial expansion.
https://www.wsj.com/video/watch-elon-musk-visits-auschwitz-death-camp-speaks-with-ben-shapiro/FC0A9E61-00EC-411C-8C18-5598096E3427
Paludan, Phillip. The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln. (1994, page 274-293).
Grimsley, Mark; Simpson, Brooks. The Collapse of the Confederacy. (2001, page 80).
Donald, Herbert. Lincoln. (1996, page 46): https://books.google.com/books?id=fuTY3mxs9awC&q=trouser#v=snippet&q=trouser&f=false
