Category Archives: Monarchy

The malevolent deconstructionist metaphysics of the Progressive Left

I spent some time the other night reading the introduction to Plato’s Republic (free on Gutenberg.org – you have no excuse) followed by a bit of Church history. It resulted in a moment of clarity around something that has bothered me for years.

To set up the problem, I posit that the great divide in thought and worldview throughout the ages is that between Plato and Aristotle. This is the direct result of reading an outstanding book several years ago on the same topic. This divide is not a recent or modern phenomenon; it runs through the ages.

My Monarchism is a worldview that, like Plato, uses the manifestation of society’s organizational structure as a model for explaining the deeper, more transcendent, metaphysical concepts. That is why I define royalism as an orientation more spiritual in nature than socio-political. This method is straight out of Plato’s handbook. My Monarchism is Platonic while the American Republican system is, in my view, more Aristotelian, a view with benefits but one that I cannot embrace as a whole. I am Platonic and not Aristotelian.

I think a person’s first priority should be to figure out on which side of this divide they stand. One’s Platonic or Aristotelian orientation effects even one’s interpretation of the more important religious concepts. A Platonic Christian thinks differently than an Aristotelian Christian, which explains much of the free-for-all in modern Christian apologetics.

The problem, then, is that the ideological mortal enemy of Monarchism is the progressive Left, which is itself Platonic. When Rousseau was asked by the Polish to develop a communist model (which proved unsuccessful), it was grounded in Platonic philosophy. At the same time, the exact opposite ideology inherent in the French Monarchy was itself grounded in Platonic philosophy. France owned the Platonic ultra-realism of the day.

So, if progressive Leftism and the conservative, traditional Monarchy are both grounded in Platonic philosophy, how can we explain the difference? That question baffled me for years. I have decided now that it is this – the progressive Left is a deconstructionist Platonic philosophy, while the French Monarchy was grounded in an affirmative, Catholic constructionist Platonic philosophy.

The early Church, and up through the first one thousand years, was decidedly Platonic. Christianity was, in fact, the answer to the questions Plato raised. They go hand in hand, not because the Church tainted itself with pagan philosophy but, rather, because the Church was the very thing toward which Plato was pointing.

Plato is right. He also is dangerous in a spiritual vacuum. His philosophy needs a metaphysics grounded in truth to support it, one that he could not provide in the pre-Christian era. The danger comes when his philosophy falls into the hands of malevolent metaphysics. This is my assertion – that the progressive Left is filling the spiritual void in the modern era with a malevolent deconstructionist metaphysics; for, we have lost sight of the life affirming ultra-realism of old.

Christians need to re-establish our philosophical footing alongside our scriptural and doctrinal foundations if we are to be victorious.

The Monarchy as the social order of creation’s liturgy

The Monarchy as the social order of creation’s liturgy

The essence of the Monarchy is the divine order. Its telos is the structuring of human society in accord with the liturgy of the created universe. The cosmos themselves are part of the divine liturgical expression. Within this expression, the movement of the heavens, the earthly eloquence of the mountains, rivers, meadows and lakes, alongside the natural beauty of the wildlife inhabiting it, form one panorama, maintain one rhythm and melody, that is synchronized through the divine liturgy of the Mass. The Mass is the apex of the telos that draws upward all of creation’s liturgical affinities.

“1 In the beginning God created a the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit b of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 6 And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.”

And so on through each day whereby the order, rhythm, and mathematical beauty of creation was informed and actualized.

Edith Stein emphasizes in The Hidden Life that Jesus reconstituted fallen creation to once again act in accord with its divine telos through the Mass as its crowning glory.  The Mass is the form and content that the created order seeks to actualize. Stein’s integration of her philosophy with her spirituality might be our own in “seeking first the Kingdom” across the threshold of the “knowledge horizon” from the natural philosophical to the supernatural spiritual. Monarchy is the visible manifestation of that transcendence from time and space to eternity.

“Blessing and distributing bread and wine were part of the Passover rite. But here both receive an entirely new meaning. This is where the life of the church begins. Only at Pentecost will it appear publicly as a Spirit-filled and visible community. But here at the Passover meal the seeds of the vineyard are planted that make the outpouring of the Spirit possible.”

“The wondrous form of the tent of meeting, and later, of Solomon’s temple, erected as it was according to divine specifications, was considered an image of the entire creation, assembled in worship and service around its Lord.”

“In place of Solomon’s temple, Christ has built a temple of living stones, the communion of saints.”

“…and finally also the inhabitants of heaven, the angels and the saints. Not only in representations giving them human form and made by human hands are they to participate in the great Eucharist of creation, but they are to be involved as personal beings—or better, we are to unite ourselves through our liturgy to their eternal praise of God.”

Stein, Edith. The Hidden Life: Essays, Meditations, Spiritual Text (The Collected Works of Edith Stein Book 4). ICS Publications. Kindle Edition.

Monarchy through the lens of Edith Stein’s Empathy

Edith Stein’s work on empathy is complex and rigorous; however, one ray of common-man light shines forth. This is that we come to know ourselves in great part through empathy with others. Part of our self-knowledge is primordially interior, but part is empathic. We see ourselves, but also see ourselves through the eyes of others. At times others see us differently than we know ourselves to be, but at times others know us better than we know ourselves.

I see this as covering an expansive terrain. This light reflects so far as to inform my understanding of culture and society. It leads me to a conclusion that what others do in society truly effects me in a profound way. Sin is never private, and the “personal” choices others make impact me empathically so deeply as to inform me of who I am. They soak into me. To tell me that I should not judge the lifestyle of another, that I should simply make my own choices differently if I believe so, to “live and let live,” is not only insufficient but harmful. What we decide has an impact on all of us.

This is why I reject not only the cultural and political Left but the Libertarian Right as well. The Left forces upon us a personally harmful and distorted society, while the Right, no matter how much they protest the opposite side’s society, ensures the latter’s success through their own libertarianism.

This is one of the fundamental reasons I am a Monarchist. As individuals who come to know ourselves through both primordial and empathic means in the Steinian sense, we require as a correlate both individual freedom and a healthy reflective society based on truth, beauty, and goodness. We must be free (primordial) but at the same time embrace healthy “foreign others” and role models (empathic).

For these reasons I reject both the Republican left and Republican right. They are two sides to the same coin, each feeding off of the other in a spiritually carcinogenic fashion. What is required is a society grounded neither in Left nor Right but in Truth. This is the essence of Légitimité and the Légitimiste Monarchy.

This healthy, life-giving embrace of both our primordial selves and the empathic “other” is expressed profoundly and with great clarity in the following gospel story.

Luke 10:38-42

Jesus came to a village, and a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. She had a sister called Mary, who sat down at the Lord’s feet and listened to him speaking. Now Martha who was distracted with all the serving said, ‘Lord, do you not care that my sister is leaving me to do the serving all by myself? Please tell her to help me.’ But the Lord answered: ‘Martha, Martha,’ he said ‘you worry and fret about so many things, and yet few are needed, indeed only one. It is Mary who has chosen the better part; it is not to be taken from her.’

Monarchy as an expression of Edith Stein’s spirituality

“I want, let us say, to solve a problem (I mean, I want to start at once and if possible go on until I find the solution). By this will act, the I that wills to solve it sets itself in motion spiritually in a definite direction. In this act, it must keep hold [gefasst halten] of itself, of the goal it aims at, and of the movement leading to the goal.” ~ Edith Stein, Potency and Act

Earlier in Potency and Act,  Edith Stein defines “spirituality” with a beautiful analogy, that of seeing a mountain as it first appears on the horizon. We observe, “There is something over there,” and we ask, “What is it?” The movement toward the mountain in search of the answer is spiritual movement. The mountain we seek to know is a “spiritual object.” The closer we get to it, the more we understand it, and when we leave, it remains with us always as a memory and lived experience. The totality of this intentional act is what we would call “spirituality.”

Later, in the quote above, she reinforces her definition and, specifically, defines spiritual movement as “goal-oriented,” just as implied in her earlier analogy.

This satisfying definition is suitable to explain why I consider my work on royalty to be an act of spirituality even before being political, cultural, or sociological. My devotion to Monarchy began over a decade ago with a “There is something over there, what is it?” moment inspired by the life of Joan of Arc. The pursuit of the answer has been foremost, by Stein’s definition, a spiritual one. The spiritual object on the horizon is the living form, the genus, the point of origin, for the royal heart.

My resulting judgements along the way of what is “good” and what is “bad” reflect the degree to which the action, ideology, or belief in question moves me toward my “goal,” which movement I require in order to fulfill my own potential and to become who I am. The goal-oriented movement (spirituality) toward “There is something over there, what is it?” (the spiritual object) requires judgements, or judging, of what is “right” and what is “wrong,” without which I will never reach my goal. To not judge the appropriateness, the goodness or badness, of actions, ideologies, and beliefs as they relate to my quest is to abandon the goal, the object, the search for “What is it?” which means to abandon spirituality and the becoming of who I am.

Spirituality is never, by definition, purely subjective. Nor is it merely a feeling or sense of well-being. There is always an object toward which we journey, our goal, that requires objective judgments, or we will never reach our “mountain.”

The authentic State (inspired by Edith Stein)

The essence of the authentic state is communal more than contract. The social contract is constitutionally associative, not empathically communal, and therefore is a fabricated social norm. The associative binds together individuals as ‘objects’ while the communal binds together humanity through empathy. Thus, the constitutional republic, as an associative contract, is a fabrication and unsustainable as a unifying, life-giving socio-political form. On the other hand, the Monarchy is totally consistent with the communal understanding of state. This conflict between the communal and associative forms is at the heart of the conflict between the Monarchy and the Republic respectively.

It is the communal understanding of state that the global elites have worked so hard to destroy. We see this typically as a disdain by the elites for local customs and traditions. The issue for the elites is that local traditions create friction in global markets. The elites need frictionless markets to maximize their wealth. Thus, their globalization must necessarily create uniformity at the expense of local self-expression and cultural autonomy. Conversely, Monarchy is actualized through local self-expression and cultural autonomy.

(The communal/associative construct above is taken from Edith Stein’s An Investigation of the State.)

This article also was inspired by the following National Geographic article.