 If you partake in the consumption of libertarian content, which if you're a viewer of mine, you inevitably do, you most likely listened to or have listened to the podcasts of Dave Smith and Michael Mallis, where you'll hear a concept known as the Cathedral mentioned a heck of a lot. The Cathedral describes the decentralized amalgamation of social institutions which act in an organised manner to push and maintain the neoliberal status quo of society. News agencies, political parties, religious leaders, advertisers, CEOs, HR departments, universities and Hollywood. These most powerful institutions in our civilisation have come together to promote a singular modern view of the world, symbolised by the rainbow and UN flags, and have achieved this without any central director. Libertarians like those of Smith and Mallis have put the Cathedral concept to effective use in getting their audience to think about how authoritarianism is not just pushed by the state. The Cathedral shows you how the ideology which produces the dismal affairs of our world is not reducible to just the White House. It shows how the modern world has been neatly and specifically designed to promote a specific tyrannical arrangement which perpetuates itself. We've been told for over a century now from all enfranchised disseminators of ideas that democracy is completely synonymous with freedom. Nowadays we're told that unless you use your democratic vote on your country's boring centre-left party, then actually you're undermining democracy, and so are promoting authoritarianism. Now all parties are simply different flavours of centre-leftism, leaving us without a democracy in any sort of meaningful sense, and certainly with only a thread of freedom left for us to hang on to. But as is the case with Orwellian Doublespeak, should you denounce this heavily coordinated novel inorganically manufactured state of affairs, you are the one ostracised as an authoritarian. If you don't let the centre-left party push its values onto you without giving it any resistance, you are in fact the one trying to force your backwards and unscientific views on everybody else. The Florida Senate gave the first ounce of actual resistance to their agenda for decades by stopping them from teaching gender identity theories to eight-year-olds, and in turn they said this bill actually made it illegal for anyone to say the word gay. This sprawling crock of shit eventually wore me down to the point where I just saw it so clearly everywhere. I stopped taking it for granted that for the course of history we've been progressing towards utopia, something which is known as the wiggish view of history, and one that I have lightly defended before. The state of our social institutions as they are now, as the cathedral, is so unlike anything they have been at any other point in human history, and the result is clear to see as utterly disastrous. If like myself you're a fan of Hopper, you've already been snapped out of this illusionary view of history at least somewhat. If you can examine democracy and monarchy on the basis of the incentives that they create and come out seeing how superior monarchy is at preserving wealth and liberty, you can no longer go back to looking at the state of the modern world and not being disgusted by it and seeing all of its ideas for the complete forgeries which they are. If you see that at some point in time, we took a wrong turn and have been continuing down that path ever since, the idea of Orwell's 1984, which I know we're all pretty tired of hearing now, actually come much more alive. Like with Newspeak, so many concepts have been turned on their heads. Actions are supposed to be divorced from consequences or else its oppression. Sex is supposed to be removed from childbearing or else its oppression. Trade-offs are supposed to be abolished or else its oppression. Women are supposed to be exalted yet at the same time not actually exist or else its oppression. Racial differences are supposed to be ignored but if you ignore them then you're racist. You can't buy happiness but if you sacrifice earnings to spend time with family, you're a lazy part-timer. Getting a degree to then work at McDonald's is considered more noble than getting an apprenticeship for a manual labour job which pays twice as much. Living in a cramped city and paying two thirds of your paycheck towards a studio apartment is liberating while having a self-sufficient homestead is backwards and suffocating. I've come to see how every single one of these ideas and so many more are completely contradictory to the way that human society has worked for its whole existence before the modern period and I began to ask were they wrong for living the way they did or are we wrong for living this way? Are we a better society now that we have smartphones and think we've overcome the idiotic superstitions of the past or were our ancestors actually so much wiser than us with greater priorities in life and the knowledge that we cannot build our own heaven as we are only capable of building hell without the help of God? With this questioning I came to realise how the cathedral's views of our society and its relation to history is one of an island or a vacuum. We tend to view any human civilisation before the Enlightenment as fundamentally different from our own, like it was of a distinctly different species entirely. Everything before the 16th century is portrayed as just one giant mistake, with the 16th to 18th centuries being an interim period and finally with the 19th century we became a modern man, divorced entirely from the kind of man who came before. And that's just being generous. We hear so much about how the concept of a family with a married monogamous couple with a single income earner and multiple children is called the nuclear family, isolated only to the 1950s when people apparently just decided that would be a fun little dynamic to try out but it just didn't work because it oppressed women. Never are we allowed to be presented with the fact that it's just the way that human family units have always worked and we are the weird ones doing things contrary to their natural way. It's comical how liberal idiots on Twitter will post pictures of US soldiers in World War II with the caption of The Original Antifa when if any of those soldiers expressed their views in 2022 they'd be immediately declared fascists and burned the societal stake. Ever since the Enlightenment but particularly in the 20th century we have seen a total uprooting of our culture from the culture which preceded it. Human societies and cultures do not appear out of thin air, their existence is a constant evolutionary process which occurs organically. When we look at the Middle Ages in England there's a clear line running from the Normans through to the Plantagenets to the Tudors comprising of a clear and organic cultural development over the course of 500 years. But we view our current society as an island not the cumulative result of many stages of culture before it which have come together to arrive at this point. We think that with the sexual revolution we wiped the slate of history clean and started humanity all over again and now we wouldn't be bogged down by the silly little notions of responsibility, duty, hierarchy, trade-offs and other social constructs which our barely human ancestors from a few centuries ago had inherited from their even less human ancestors. In making my previous video about Gospiah I got quite interested in learning about the history of pre-unification Italy and learnt of a movement called the San Fidesmo. After the French Revolution the Jacobins tried to rapidly expand their egalitarian revolution to the rest of Europe and an army of peasants in the south of Italy led by a thoroughly dripped out cardinal of the Catholic Church rose up to kick them out. I now saw the nobility of such an effort to resist the decaying forces of egalitarian atheistic democracy and the preservation of monarchy, Catholicism and tradition. In case you didn't know since I released my video about becoming Christian the reasons I gave there for not being Catholic have completely fallen away and this past Easter vigil I was confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church. This led me to wonder if a similar movement to the San Fidesmo had occurred in my own country and sure enough it had in the form of the Jacobites, definitely not to be confused with the French Jacobins. These days the milk toast liberals who call themselves Scottish nationalists whilst actually being European globalists portray the Jacobites as just a bunch of angry Scots who hated the English but that is so far from the actual story which I'll try to condense just to get my point across. Not long after England became Protestant, then Catholic again, then Protestant again, the English and Irish throne was inherited by King James VI of Scotland who became King James I of England finally uniting the British Isles under a single ruler after centuries upon centuries of conflict. James was from the royal house of Stuart, so remember that. His descendant Charles I led the royalists in the English Civil War, lost to the parliamentarians who wanted to abolish the monarchy and with his death Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector of Great Britain. He made this dictatorship a hereditary position which would be passed to his son. So he started a war to abolish the monarchy which killed thousands of people then created his own monarchy. Cunt. Thankfully the powers that be saw that for the bullshit which it was and after his death they restored the Stuart monarchy by bringing back Charles' son Charles II. Charles II was an extremely popular king but despite having 12 illegitimate children he did not have a legitimate heir. This meant the throne would go to his brother James who had converted to Catholicism. The Lords and Parliament, rather than allowing a Catholic monarch, imported William of Orange to overthrow the Stuarts three years after James II's coronation and killed him. The Jacobites named themselves after James and over the course of 40 years fought multiple wars to restore the Catholic inheritance of House Stuart to the throne. Largely supported by Scotland who wanted a house of their own back on the throne and the Irish who wanted a Catholic monarch restored as well as from the Stuarts promising to grant Ireland more autonomy. This is all to say that I found my version of the San Fadisti, a British reactionary Catholic movement who sadly lost their fight against the parliamentarians that then brought in democracy and so began the shit show that we find ourselves in today. Realising that things simply didn't have to be the way that they are I've been on a bit of a kick in learning about English medieval history and the later Jacobite cause. I talked about this with other libertarians that I'm in group chats with and discord servers with and made it clear that my position hasn't changed in that I certainly still view anarcho-capitalism as the true natural order and ideal state of affairs but my appreciation of absolute monarchy has only been growing. I sent out a tweet saying why should I be a neo reactionary when I can be a Jacobite actual reactionary and it wasn't long until I learned that was a pretty stupid thing of me to say because who else is a Jacobite actual reactionary than the same man who penned the concept of the cathedral? Curtis Yavin aka king of the reactionaries Mentionist Moldbug. I found this out after years of hearing about Moldbug but never actually reading him and for no good reason and I have absolutely no recollection of how I came across this but I found an article from the National Review criticising his work. I read this knowing that the National Review is the head of the boring stale neo-conservative outlets founded specifically to turn the American right into globalist interventionists. I wanted to read this article not to agree with it but knowing that by reading pretty much everything the author said was bad about Moldbug I would actually see pretty much everything that was good. The author wasted no time in the tagline saying Moldbug was naive to human beings and blind to trade-offs immediately telling me that the opposite was likely the case going quickly on to accuse Moldbug of casual racism once again conservatives using the language of the progressives driving at the speed limit. In this he told me that Moldbug hates liberal democracy as mob violence and a creator of conflict wants to restore the stewards thinks that the enlightenment was a mistake hates journalists and says the only substantial progress we've made for hundreds of years has been in technology. I was smitten only days earlier having ranted to some of my unlucky friends about how by every metric except strictly economic ones life in a medieval European kingdom was so much better than we have now as libertarians we've had no trouble in understanding that political systems are not the cause of economic growth at all so if democracy has had nothing to contribute to our increasing material quality of life but has everything to do with the decay of everything else why the fuck did we ever make the change I had accidentally come to fully agree with Moldbug on almost all of his diagnoses on society's ills but not with many of his wacky varieties of status prescriptions the same opinion I hear from all of my nrx anarchist counterparts I already know that some people will come at me with quotes from him that obviously contradict some of my positions so I'm just saying don't waste your time while I've clarified that my ideal political position has not changed I should discuss how I don't think there needs to be any contradiction in being a neo-reactionary and an anarchist but nothing I say will surprise you if you're a hoppian before I came to the realization of what I had become I spent a lot of time thinking to myself that if a new jack-o-bite rebellion popped up I would absolutely support it knowing full well this is only a fantasy but wondering if I could find any other people who felt the same way the reason I would support it is that their goals are certainly not my ideal state of affairs but fuck me they're so much closer to my ideal than what we have now if you have a knee-jerk reaction to hearing this and want to call me a statist then I think you seriously need to assess the fact that you've been conditioned since birth by the cathedral to accept their lie that democracy and freedom are synonymous you should know better if you watch me if we're safe in our agreed upon foundation that anarchy is the ideal why can we not talk about and even support movements which seek to bring us closer to it even if not all the way there after all it was the medieval period when cospire existed and thrived for a reason so why the hell should we not desire a return to those systems rather than keeping the tentacular hydra of globalist oligarchic democracy with all of their three letter agencies and wars of global hegemony that would never accept just one tiny village not being under their control and therefore not being able to suck it dry from taxation if we want to see a stateless republic like cospire again we absolutely never will unless we roll back the clock to the time when it actually happened before the enlightenment brought Hobbes' materialist tyranny and Rousseau's egalitarian collectivism which have since merged into the united nations and world economic forum the world is pretty fucked and it's liberating to finally say it but I've never been black peeled and that's not going to change in fact this new ability to diagnose the deepest roots of our societal problems gives me even more hope than I had before as now I can see the obstacle so much clearly than before and conceive of ways to overcome it and know the examples from history which we can follow I'll close now by giving a quote from the ever poetic mold bug which won me over as soon as I read it as it completely summarized what I had come to think about our society's perception of its place in history is there anyone else in the room who's here because he's just plain embarrassed by the present world the past is a foreign country someone once said if the past is a foreign country someone else said a reactionary is a patriot of that country almost an exile from it and unlike the presentist who sees the past as a tiny backward and contemptible province of his vast eternal present the reactionary knows the opposite the present is a province of the past yes it's true like any other province it has its specialties the food for instance the ipads superb the movies never better take it easy