Contemporary politics is structured around a paradox that few people understand.
On one side, Curtis Yarvin argues that we live under the rule of a diffuse ideological super-structure he calls the Cathedral — a decentralized, unelected network that shapes culture, morality, and public policy.
On the other side, Murray Rothbard insists that the State, as a monopoly on violence, is the ultimate source of authoritarianism.
At first glance, these positions seem contradictory. In reality, they are complementary, and they converge toward one conclusion:
The problem is not too much State or too little State — the problem is any monopolistic structure of authority.
1. The Cathedral: What Yarvin Saw Before Everyone Else
Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug) was the first to clearly articulate that the modern State is no longer merely a bureaucratic apparatus. It has become an ideological-institutional ecosystem, composed of:
- universities and academia
- major media conglomerates
- NGOs and “civil society” groups
- permanent bureaucracies
- aligned corporations
- cultural networks that transmit official norms
This network is what Yarvin calls the Cathedral, because it behaves like a secular church that:
- produces moral doctrine
- defines political “good” and “evil”
- judges and punishes dissidents
- shapes public opinion through culture and education
- indirectly commands the formal government
Its power is precisely that it has no central leader.
A distributed system can be more authoritarian than a king, because nobody is accountable for anything.
Yarvin is right:
👉 Real power today is cultural, not governmental.
👉 Control is decentralized but totalizing.
👉 The new tyranny is systemic, not personal.
2. Yarvin’s Paradox: When Less State Means More Authoritarianism
One of Yarvin’s most provocative insights is that:
Less State ≠ More freedom.
In many cases, a weak State becomes a vacuum that alternative power structures fill, such as:
- corporations
- academic institutions
- media systems
- activist bureaucracies
- surveillance-driven social networks
- self-perpetuating “expert” classes
In other words:
👉 When the State weakens, power does not disappear — it migrates.
It relocates into institutions that are far less transparent, less accountable, and far more ideological.
Yarvin’s central observation is brutally simple:
Society is always governed by someone.
The only question is: who, and how?
3. Rothbard: The Other Half of the Equation
Rothbard approaches the problem from the opposite angle:
👉 The bigger the State becomes, the more authoritarian it becomes, because it:
- monopolizes violence
- suppresses competing jurisdictions
- regulates private life
- imposes coercive taxation
- infantilizes the population
- destroys spontaneous social orders
Far from contradicting Yarvin, Rothbard is describing the centralized form of the same phenomenon Yarvin studies in its distributed form.
- Yarvin shows how power becomes diffuse, cultural, ideological, unofficial.
- Rothbard shows how power becomes centralized, coercive, formal, institutional.
Both forms crush the individual.
Both forms reinforce each other.
Both forms create a world where freedom becomes impossible.
4. The False Solutions: Neofeudalism and Neocorporatism
Some Yarvin-inspired thinkers imagine that the solution to the problem is:
- a CEO-king
- a corporate monarchy
- a neofeudal patchwork
- a technocratic “shareholder” government
- a refined version of corporatism
But these ideas suffer from a fatal flaw:
👉 They simply replace the Cathedral with a castle or a boardroom.
👉 They swap one monopoly for another monopoly.
These models replicate exactly what Rothbard warned against:
a coercive hierarchy with no exit.
A Yarvinian monarchy may be more efficient, but efficiency is irrelevant if the structure is still unaccountable.
A corporate state may be more rational, but rational tyranny is still tyranny.
These models fail because they ignore the core principle of liberty:
Real authority must be voluntary, competitive, and non-coercive.
5. The Real Answer: Abolishing the State and Embracing Elitist Individualism
The solution is not more State.
It is not less State.
It is not a different kind of State.
👉 The solution is the abolition of the political monopoly altogether — the abolition of the State.
👉 The solution is a society based on elite individualism, not institutional authority.
What does this mean?
Elitist Individualism Defined
- The individual is sovereign.
- Responsibility is personal, not collective.
- Hierarchies are natural, fluid, merit-based — not coercive or politically enforced.
- Culture is produced by competent individuals, not monopolistic institutions.
- There is no “mass politics,” no “will of the people,” no democratic mysticism.
- There is no monarchic fantasy, no CEO-king, no corporate throne.
- Associations, communities, and orders arise spontaneously and remain voluntary.
A truly libertarian order is one where:
- no ideology can dominate
- no bureaucracy can expand unchecked
- no monarch can centralize power
- no Cathedral can capture minds
- no institution can impose obedience
- no one can rule without consent
- and everyone can exit any association at any time
In other words:
👉 A society of sovereign individuals, not subjects.
👉 A natural elite of creators, entrepreneurs, thinkers — without coercive power.
Conclusion: Yarvin Diagnoses the Disease, Rothbard Provides the Cure
- Yarvin is right: power today is cultural, diffuse, and ideologically enforced.
- Yarvin is right: weak formal states often produce stronger informal tyrannies.
- Rothbard is right: big states always evolve into coercive monsters.
These insights are not contradictory — they complete each other.
Together, they reveal the truth:
Authoritarianism does not come from the State alone, nor from culture alone, but from any monopoly of authority — formal or informal.
And therefore:
👉 The answer is not democracy.
👉 The answer is not monarchy.
👉 The answer is not neofeudalism, corporatism, or managerialism.
The answer is:
The abolition of the State and the cultivation of a sovereign, disciplined, elite individualism.
No Cathedral.
No King-CEO.
No coercive order.
Only free individuals — responsible, excellent, and ungovernable.
Leave a Reply