Book Summary: Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty

The winner writes the history, they say, and modern democratic nations are no exception. My recently released book, titled Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Libertyseeks to correct multiple false beliefs that Americans maintain about the Middle Ages, critiques modern secular society, and opens up a world once ruled by a form of Christian libertarianism. In this work, I connect both secularism and tyranny to democracy. I demonstrate that democracy is a poison to liberty, while Christianity and kingship promote and protect it. Only a purposeful Christian monarchy can maintain liberty long-term. Politics, voting, and democracy inevitably degrade law and morality and introduce other social ills into society, while producing a massive increase in the devastating effects of war.

I begin by defining what period and place I mean by Christendom, which is Europe from 700 to 1300 A.D. I explain the differences between the earlier pagan and Roman emperors and the later monarchs of the Renaissance (who could create and pass laws) compared to the medieval Christian Kings. These kings’ power was less than that of modern politicians.  The king could not create laws; instead, he was under the law and was to perform a duty granted under the law to serve the people. He was the “king of the Franks,” of his people, not of a geographical area as Roman law declared. Medieval kings’ rule was fragile. Often, their vassals were more potent than they, kings controlling only their families’ ancestral lands.

Before the rise of the modern secular state, Christian libertarianism permeated society. There was no regulatory bureaucracy or professional government; instead, law and justice based on God’s eternal law and on nature settled any disputes.

Of course, some tyrants sought to gain more power for themselves, but they lacked the government infrastructure to raise mighty armies or otherwise implement their desires, and by custom and law were resisted at every point. It was part of the law to rebel against would-be dictators who were placing themselves above it. The Church encouraged each level of society to take an active role in overthrowing and defeating tyrants. Devout Christians, putting God above men, prevented tyranny from overtaking society. The Church actively played a military role in overthrowing them as well. I compare medieval churches’ hierarchy and their military and political role to Aslan of Narnia, while modern priests and pastors are more akin to Garfield.

People lived under self-rule we cannot imagine today; a town was often autonomous, living under its own chosen customs and laws, unaltered and unaffected by centralized or outside forces. No distant lord, king, or majority could manipulate their way of life, which was also very libertarian. Each realm was sovereign from the next, creating thousands of diverse laws and ways of life. Thousands of “unified wholes” existed in the decentralized pre-democratic areas before groups began to fight for political control. People did not need to get angry or quarrel over politics as they already lived with like-minded people, as they desired. They achieved self-government not by voting but by avoiding the ballot!

I seek to correct many other false understandings of the Middle Ages, such as the work rate and hours of toil of medieval peasants (which was less than in modern society), the condition of serfs, what feudalism actually was, how it operated and arose, lifespans, dietary health, and much else.

The second half of my book critiques modern secular democracy and compares it to medieval kingship. I demonstrate that it is a myth that democracy allows self-governance. Libertarians can easily understand this. What occurs in every democracy is an oligarchy of influential military personnel, politicians, businessmen, etc., conglomerates that back suitable candidates for office who will obey their directives and pass legislation in their favor, while disadvantageous competitors. They purchase media, control government-funded education and teach their desired philosophies in the classroom, ending up directing public opinion rather than responding to it. The people in a democracy stop thinking logically and follow groupthink. Leaders always end up with more power at the top, taken from the hardworking people.

Secularism is taught because it removes resistance to the state, making it the grandest power in the land with no higher authority than itself, no check on its power, and nothing it is responsible for. Democracy ends up with more and more government control, inevitably leading to authoritarianism. Wherever it replaced monarchy, democracy drastically increased government control and power. Likewise, whenever voting expansion occurs, government authority and taxation expand likewise.

I cite numerous studies at leading universities over decades, concluding what many suspect, that politics is bad for the mind and soul. It causes anger and hatred; people get involved in emotional wars and fall victim to prejudices, confirmation bias, etc. They are literally no longer able to consume information in an honest and informed manner. Politics dumb down the population. People create a Matrix world in their minds, forcing all information to conform to their emotional and political beliefs, rejecting contrary evidence, etc.

Those who run for office can be almost like psychopaths in personality. Their desire for power over others destroys all scruple, and competitive campaigns bring out only the worst in politicians, ever-willing to do under-the-table deals, lie, and cheat to get ahead. Democracy causes social decay, breeds violence and hatred, and provokes massive wars, as well as increased statism and secularism. A Christendom built upon Christian kingship, as once existed during the Middle Ages, is the only form of governance able to preserve liberty and Christianity.

-By Jeb Smith

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty and Defending Dixie’s Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac C. Bishop). You can contact him at jackson18611096@gmail.com.

9 comments

  1. I find much to agree with in your article. I only question your use of the term “Christian Libertarianism.” To my mind, Libertarianism was one of the problems that accompanied the rise of capitalist states. Please forgive the length of the following quote, but it illustrates well my line of thinking.

    “Before the rise of Capitalist States, tribes and families were integrated units, whatever the form of State, be it Monarchy, a Republic or even a despotism. Of course, some forms of State were preferable to others, but they had in common the fact that the rulers and ruled were organically … interdependent. … But with the rise of usury and money-creating Capitalism there arose a new form of power, whose protagonists had no true links with the nations over whom they had full sway. … There arose a purely parasitical power, internationalist both in form and spirit. … The theoretical rulers of the states subjected to the usurers and money-creators are no more than a façade entirely controlled by finance. … The principle for which we must fight is a return to an integrated and organic State at all levels, where rulers and ruled are in a condition of natural relationship.” pp. 194-5.

    George Knupffer, ‘The Struggle for World Power’

    Davis Carlton wrote a fine critique of ‘Capitalism’ called “A Traditionalist Critique of Capitalism.”

    https://faithandheritage.com/2016/06/a-traditionalist-critique-of-capitalism/

    Libertarians are devout – every man for himself – capitalists.

    1. I am not a fan of capitalism either! Nor libertarian party per say. I simply used a term many readers would be familiar with, that of a pre-modern non interventionist state where the government did not control every area of our lives.

      I will start on your link, sounds like a great read.

    2. Having now read the article I can say I agree 100%. I have written very similar in my book on the South and also on Tolkien. I also am a distributist!

      1. Thanks for clarifying. I’m probably going to have to read your book at some point so I can comment with a greater understanding of where you’re coming from.

        1. And thank you for pointing out my “mistake” as I now regret the term. I also write to a general audience and so use terms many are familiar with. For example, I have a series of articles on the Crusades coming out and I use the terms “Crusades” and “Crusaders” even though that is not the correct term, but it is what is familiar to people.

Comments are closed.