Ep 210 - They Lied to You About the Middle Ages...And It's By Design with Author Jeb Smith

James Caldwell: As soon as a king or someone tries to adapt the law, ⁓ expand his powers and so on, he's now a tyrant and he's now not just at war with people, the people and the church, he's at war with God. There's ⁓ John of Salisbury, another Anglo Saxon writer, he said as soon as the king goes beyond his authority, he's now he's not only violating the liberties of the people, he's now at war with God 'cause he's placed himself up high as the most high, saying he can declare law and And create lie, he's really saying God got it wrong in the past and I know what laws should be passed or what the government should do. This is the Manly Catholic, the podcast that calls you out of the shadows and into the fight. Here we forge men into warriors for Christ, husbands, fathers, and leaders who refuse to kneel to the modern world's lies. No more passivity, no more excuses, no more lukewarm faith. This is your battle cry, your call to arms. Time for weakness is over. It's time to fight. Welcome to the Manly Catholic. Let's get to work. Hello all. Welcome back to another episode of the Manly Catholic. This is James, your host, and with me tonight, I have a guest I'm very excited to speak with. It is Jeb Smith. Jeb, welcome to the Manly Catholic Podcast. Nice to meet you, James. Thanks for having me on. My pleasure. Now, Jeb wrote a very fascinating book. It is called Missing Monarchy: Correcting Misconceptions about the Middle Ages, Medieval Kingship, Democracy. And liberty. I think we're gonna be ⁓ stirring some pots tonight, Jeb, which I am very excited about. And now those of you maybe ⁓ first time hearing about Jeb, Jeb is an author, speaker, and historian who has written five books, including Defending Dixie's Land, Whatever Whatever American Should Know About the South and the Civil War, Missing Monarchy, which we're gonna be talking about tonight, and Defending the Middle Ages, Little Known Truths About the Crusades, Inquisitions. Medieval women and more. He has also written over a hundred and thirty articles across several publications. Now, Jeb, I'll I'll let you dive into anything else you want to add to that. But to kick off all of our new guests, it's like an icebreaker. If you could be the patron saint of anything, what would it be and why? I looked this up and I would like to be the patron saint of history, if I could, because that's my huge interest. But apparently Saint Bedid already has that on lockdown. And I and I wouldn't want to mess with that in any way. He's written some great works that I cite. I cite him quite often in my book. ⁓ then I looked up could there be a saint of J.R. Tolkien or Middle Earth? If that were if that were ⁓ allowed, that that's what I'd love to be ⁓ recognized as for sure. Okay. Okay. Did you I know we're going on a little bit of a tangent here. Did you read the book Mount Doom? By ⁓ who was the author? ⁓ man, Mount Doom. I'm looking this up. I had him on the podcast. This is embarrassing. ⁓ by Paul Al Ali Gafari and Paul List. They wrote it back in two thousand twenty two. They dive into all things J.R. Tolkien, so I have not, but I'll I'll definitely Google that after and ⁓ put it on my to read list. I'll send I'm researching, I'm running a book. I'm writing a book on Tolkien right now. So I I have this ongoing list of what I have to read before it's ⁓ completed and I'll definitely check that out. Yeah. Okay. Well I'll have to have you back on. Tolkien is ⁓ I love Tolkien. We can we could talk about that too. But ⁓ Jeb, let's let's just dive into this. I mean, missing monarchy. So I mean, obviously there's a lot of misconceptions about ⁓ the word monarchy, ⁓ especially in the Western world, especially being Americans, you know. We're all about democracy, right? And capitalism and all that. So let's just let's just start with the the basic question. ⁓ I guess what made you dive into something like this? 'Cause I'm sure it was ⁓ not an easy thing to research and to dive into. Right. It was it was never my intention. It was actually J.R. Tolkien. So I was researching for J.R. Tolkien and I and to really understand Tolkien in Middle Earth, you have to understand the Anglo Saxon history. And so I I di I dug into the Anglo Saxon history, including Saint Bedid, and I realized this is nothing as it was taught. ⁓ this is not as it was portrayed to me in schools and documentaries and movies and things of that sort. And so That really ⁓ once I find out that something is not the way it was presented originally, it just sparks my interest. And I dug deeper, I went to all of feudal Europe and and so it was really J.R. Tolkien that pulled me in because I knew he was a monarchist and I knew he was a libertarian er you know, ⁓ broadly speaking. And I didn't in my mind those were complete opposite. So I had to know how how is this how do I understand this mind that wrote Middle Earth that presents a form of kingship. in Middle Earth and and that's kind of just that was the beginning of it. Yeah. So what I guess let's just talk about definitions here. So when we say monarchy, Jeb, what are what are we talking about exactly? Right, and that that's ⁓ one the things I cover early on is there's a difference between kings and monarchs. And most people in our mind, we think of monarchs that emerged in the 14th century and afterwards. So like King George the third is what we think of. But really in our mind we're thinking of dictators. You go back to Roman Roman times and in pagan dictators that who had this absolutist ⁓ sort of power that could command people, could create law and so on. We think of monarchy as the the government is one person, and in that one person he has the ability to legislate, to regulate, to tax, to to declare war and so on. And so one of the things I'm covering is that that is not what a true monarch is. Not even King George the Third. He he was He did not have much authority at all. Not even the absolutist monarchs in Christ in Christendom throughout Christ the Christian West had that sort of power. So I use monarchy because it's a popular term, but what I'm really focusing on is the medieval kings before they became monarchs. So it's before the fourteenth century and before the Norman conquest in England in ten sixty six. So if you're looking at England, you have to go back to Anglo Saxon England and Europe as a whole before before the Fourteenth Amendment. Fourteenth century, sorry. And so and that's the s that's the form of kingship that was unique. It was very libertarian. It was it was ⁓ far different than what we imagine a monarch to be. What would be I guess r reason I'm sure we could dive into so many different rabbit holes here, but what for you is the biggest misconception that especially ⁓ you know, Americans, we think of monarchy like you said, like a dictatorship and you know, we have all these misconceptions of what that means, but what would you say You know, 'cause most of our listeners here are ⁓ from the United States is is the biggest misconception they need to correct. Right, yeah. And and to be clear, I had all the same misconceptions. ⁓ at one point in my life for a long time, I was kind of that conservative American Republican that thought America was the greatest nation on earth, that we created liberty, you know, monarchy was oppressive. America's the greatest nation of all time, is what I thought. And so the biggest misconception is the power of the king. And again, I'm going back before the 14th century to this form of kingship that in the early and high middle ages. And he could not create law. He was underneath the law. In the Middle Ages, they viewed law as they did in the ancient biblical times. So God created law through his written word and then it's ingrained in nature, natural law through these people and through these tribes. The law is already set hundreds of years before any king, current king, if you're in the Middle Ages or majority is around. Law is not to be touched because it's divinely revealed. That's why Saint Badid we talked about. He said, Only Christ is king. Th they had that mindset that God is above any human ruler. And if God created law and he said what man can and cannot do, what rulers can and cannot do, what their limitations are, well then man's his only job I I quote a Frenchman who I wouldn't be able to ⁓ pronounce his name, but he said, What is the science of government but to discover the laws of God? For man. And he said, What is man to think he can create law and tell another man what to do? In their mind, God is above all. He decides what's right, what's wrong, what man is to do is not to do. No king or majority is to decide that on his own. So you you go centuries and centuries in the Middle Ages without any form of legislation. Kings cannot pass law. There's no professional state. There's no politicians that are hired that are there to create law. Your law is in the past. It's like the can't Ten Commandments, it's written in stone, it's untouchable. And as soon as a king or someone tries to adapt a lot, ⁓ expand his powers and so on, he's now a tyrant. And he's now not just at war with people, the people and the church, he's at war with God. There's ⁓ John of Salisbury, another Anglo Saxon writer, he said as soon as the king goes beyond his authority, he's now he go he's not only violating the liberties of the people, he's now at war with God. 'Cause he's placed himself up high as the most high, saying he can declare law and create law. He's really saying God got it wrong in the past and I know what laws should be passed or what the government should do. And so their mind says Christ is king, he's above all the law is set in the past. The king is simply the servant of the people, the servant and protector of the law. He he performs a duty to the people in the law. He's not above the law himself as we elect politicians. We had the modern state or monarch might be where he can create law and adapt it. We we don't elevate human or in the Middle Ages, they didn't elevate human to divine status. And that's why the ancient pagan ⁓ emperors that we think of as monarchs, they were considered most often divine or dis descendants of gods. So they had that ability to legislate. And that's what we do when we vote today. We give DC basically what would be considered divine authority saying it has the power to tell man what he can, what he can't do, and saying we're not gonna listen to the Bible anymore or natural law or the church, we're now gonna decide these things for ourselves. And so we're really having idol, ⁓ the state. When you have someone, other humans that can legislate over you, that's really giving them divine authority over you. And they didn't do in that in the Middle Ages. So law did not expand. In America, one thing I love to point out, we pass, I think it's over ten thousand laws a year. across the United States that are added on to our existing laws. That's more than the entire Middle Ages for hundreds and hundreds of years. So it's the the government is just minuscule. The whole idea of government is completely at odds with modern secular thought that gives man the ability to create law. So i it I I kind of rambled there, but the king does not have the ability to create law, to to go to war to Force taxes on people to do as he as he wills. And I think that's a huge misconception that Americans have. Coffee and prayer. It's the perfect blend. Mystic Monk Coffee isn't just another cup of coffee. It's handcrafted by the Carmelite monks of Wyoming, roasted with care and infused with prayer. Whether you're starting your morning or fueling your day, Mystic Monk Coffee has you covered. It offers rich, bold flavors that are as divine as their mission. By choosing Mystic Monk, you're not just enjoying exceptional coffee, but you're supporting a community of monks dedicated to their work, to prayer, and to the church. It's coffee with a cause. So what are you waiting for? Visit MysticMonkCoffee.com and experience the brew that's fueling faith and flavor. So okay, so correct me if I'm wrong here. So kings could not really enact law or pass laws. So how or declare I think you said even like go to war, declare war. So how would I guess how would the government run then? It had certain limited functions already in existence. So, you know, I compared the government it it's different. We have to get the mindset of a professional government over us at all times right against us, because that didn't exist. It was more like j a judicial system. If you thought the government as kind of a big, huge court system in a way. And so if a violation came into play, if someone murdered someone, then the law would kick in, but the law's already pre existing and you're just going back to what's already in place. Okay, how do we handle this situation? If you're invaded, the king or the lord is the protector of the realm. He's then able to levy taxes or or a muster from his vassals and so on that that you know, our oath bound to follow and he fights off the invader and so on, and then the war is over. There's not this permanent income tax as we have in America to keep a professional national army across the world. They would fight this little war that lasts a month or two and then it's over and then the tax is over in and the war's over and whatever powers the king had are are are no longer there. I saw a hilarious meme on Facebook the other day and it said how the ⁓ In America, the ⁓ the ⁓ income tax was instituted in nineteen thirteen, is there, or nineteen seventeen maybe, for World War One, and it said, Man, I can't wait for World War One to end so this tax is over. Like everything today is permanent and it grows. And then it was actually literally, you know, based on certain events. And once the once the event is over, the government has lost its existing power and it dissipates. And that's why I say it's like a wave. It comes and it goes. It's not a permanent above the people. a molder of society. Interesting. So you could I guess you could make the argument, Jeb, that citizens in that day and age were, I mean, I guess more free because they didn't have all these these tax associates. I mean, because I know that some some natural pushbacks I'm sure you've answered, like, you know, there was like ⁓ you know, was it the feudal system? You know, so you had like all these elites and then like all these peasants and then there's no real ⁓ movement within the classes and you know if you were a peasant just born a peasant, then there is no way to move up. ⁓ I guess ⁓ those are just the the natural questions. I mean that I even learned like in my fifth or sixth grade world history on, you know, like the dark ages and stuff and how how wrong we were then. But what would you say to some of those common objections to like, well, people were so poor and are you saying like it's better to go back to that day and age? So You know, this those natural questions, I'm sure you've answered it a hundred times before. Yeah, I do I do have a chapter on feudalism. First it it's important to say where it started is feudalism was really out of necessity. It was a military arrangement that protected people. So throughout the West, you have these ⁓ Viking invasions, you have Muslim invasions, you have different threats to kind of Western Christendom. And feudalism is a decentralized way for the military to react, especially on horseback. So you have like these these large Frankish kings, barbarian type kings that that are are kings over these huge tribes. Well, when the Vikings come in, they can raid a monastery, raid a town, murder, rape, pillage, and then they're off. And the king's not there in time to help them. So people started flocking to military leaders, lords, ⁓ aristocrats that had land that said, I'll offer your protection, you're safe here, I'll give you this land. And they'd move there for their own protection. And he was able to be an expertly trained knight himself on horseback who could quickly respond to these sort of raids, these Viking raids, because the king's not going to help you in any way. So it was out of more out of military necessity. Also, the fall of Rome left millions of people without land, without property, the cities decayed, trade decayed, they're starving, they have nowhere to go. In the feudal system and the manor system, offer them property and protection, which is what people wanted. So again, they start flocking to these former senators in in Roman times or these Frankish chief chieftains and these kind of military elites that would r later become the knights of Western Christendom. And so their their improv or their situation is vastly improved. It was basically starved, be murdered, or be protected. You you're now on this land with the family ⁓ with protection and and you'd pay rent and so on. So that's how it started. It didn't start with ideal situation. It's not like people said, Okay, what kind of form of government are we gonna have? But to adopt feudalism, it was it was again out of necessity. But ⁓ there's a whole different mindset. America, we're very ambitious. We're told to improve yourself, to make money, to become the top of whatever you are. And the medieval mindset, like I I quote some historians that say, if you're the shoemaker of the town, you're the prince of the shoemaker. That's your family's ⁓ that's their business. They take pride in that. They they really ⁓ yeah, people they had pride in their craft and they didn't view the knight who does a different s who has a different function or the monk or the bishop. They weren't there wasn't this ⁓ jealousy of of other pish positions. People were very content. They viewed it as a united whole. So there's the the people who feed generally is broken down to the the people who grow the food, the people who pray, and the people who fight. Those are kind of the divisions, but there wasn't an the Marxist ⁓ class warfare didn't exist. It was a Christian, Thomas Coyne is called a a united whole. So there wasn't a whole lot of people looking to become something other than what they were. They were proud of what they grew up with. They were content with it. At the same time, there was definitely mobility. I mentioned various examples of peasants becoming a pope, the most powerful person in the world, becoming a manor lord, ⁓ merchants could become great lords. There there was the ⁓ maneuverability. But at the same time, we especially we we push children in public school to become politicians. We say seek power, you know, get your voice out, ⁓ be you could become governor, you could become president. That's why America's great because anyone can become president. And they'll say that you look at the Middle Ages, you have to be born into becoming a king. But that was part of the whole thing. They wanted to keep it through these hereditary lines because as Thomas Aquinas said, The last person you want in power are those who seek it. We push people to be become politically active to go out there and then force their ways on everyone else, which is what democracy is. It's one big war of everyone denying each other self government and imposing your way on someone else. And that's not their mindset. They said they wanted to keep those sort of people out of power because those are the people that will use government power to their advantage. And so that's why it was passed down hereditary, why these things were set through bloodline. But they they didn't have the same ambition to become to put themselves in place of power. That was really s not viewed in a positive way as it is in America today. But the feudal system, I I love it. ⁓ it it was actually very libertarian. I I quote Anglo Saxon England we were talking about. I I quote a historian who said we have these vast you know, dozens of square acres or even hundreds that are owned by monks, bishops, ⁓ dukes, earls, ⁓ or or great lords. And in them you had all these tiny isolate villages. All these isolate villages are living, they're self-sufficient, they're they have no outside influence. They may pay rent to their lord for their land, but other than that, there's no taxes, there's no regulations, they're completely free out of those obligations to their Lord. And depending on place and time, some of those obligations were trivial, very minor, which means the people, you know, what we would equal maybe a one, two percent tax. And if you add up our income tax, our sales tax, tax on like D and V, on the cars, all all those things, perm fines are in permissions to for your to run your business, all those are just forms of tax. If you throw it all in there, we're paying far more than the medieval peasant was ⁓ under the feudal system. You know, Jeff, that's that's such an interesting point. And I don't think it's I've ever really heard it that way where but yeah, you're right. In America it's you could be kind of like whoever you want to be, and it's all about, you know, climbing the corporate ladder and making as much money as possible. And it it really did. They had a different mindset back then. I think it's definitely more of like a communal aspect to it. But, you know, I I never thought about that too. It's like, okay, yeah, are you you're born into it and What was the quote you said, you know, it's you know the ones who seek power are the ones that you don't want leading you at it would remind me of ⁓ I interviewed an exorcist and he said the same thing is like the you know, you don't want a priest to be an exorcist who wants the job, you know, because there's probably like something going on there that's like, Okay, you don't want someone who wants all this power. And it's so funny, like we we think about that and it's like like all these politicians that we have, like we know there's corruption going on. We know there's all these like power games going on and like you mentioned, all the laws that are passed and you know, there's all this manipulation like, Well, okay, you scratch my back, I'll scra there's all those deals and we think it's like it's such a better system right when we're all clamoring for actually we want to just tear the whole thing down and like, Okay, so what do we put in this place? You know, so I I know I kinda ramble there, I'll let you Yeah, I've gotten to the point where I cannot stand any politician winning. I despise it so much. It is just the that whole idea of someone who wants power. And and after a while, if you can break out of the right versus left political divide in America and you can kind of step back for a while, this is what I say in my book kind of step back and then come back and view it. And you're gonna see all these people are scam artists. You're not gonna be able to listen to a political advertisement, a political speech. Or watch anyone on the news without saying they're just saying what they want to say to get elected. I mean, that's the vast majority, especially at the at the federal level. And that's why Jared Tolkien again to bring him in, you know, he presents that in Lord of the Rings. Zalman wants the ring. Zond wants the ring. Why they want it? So they can have power so they can control everyone else. And again, Tolkien was very medievalist. He he was ⁓ decentralized in consent. He wanted everyone to have their own forms of government. No one has the right to rule. over someone else, right or wrong. And you know, that's the time as Thomas Aquinas said. You keep the power away from the people that want it. Tolkien has a great quote. He said, The medievalists were only right in that not wanting to be bishop is the best reason to make someone a bishop. If someone's fighting it, and I use some examples, ⁓ Cuthbert, ⁓ Anglo Saxon bishop, they didn't want it. It's not like these people were seeking power. They went out and found someone that could be a servant. That's how the original kings and the original houses were as well. They were either great warriors or they were like a great protector, or this person does not want power, but he would be great at it. That's what a public servant is supposed to be, which we say, you know, in in the Founding Fathers, I definitely believe we had some in that generation. Over time it turns into politicians, people who campaign and seek power. And we encourage that in public schools. And you can see it everywhere where they turn them into little activists with with whatever their agenda is pushed on them. and throw ⁓ out there and then they seek power and then they impose their ways on everyone else and it's just a corrupt immoral system. I think we should get off politics because I think we can go dive into that. And I I wanted to ask you this though, because I I've always I don't know why. I've always been fascinated by medieval warfare. Do you mind if we dive into some I you know, I think of what it was, I think it was Age of Empires. I I don't know if you did you ever play Age of Empires the computer game when you were younger. I was upset. I didn't, but for me it was Total War. I don't know. I played Medieval One and Medieval Two Total War and I love those games. Yes. Okay. So let's most people think about ⁓ gosh, don't get me started. I I've stepped away from video games. You're gonna bring me back here, Jeb. So okay, so let's talk about so most people think, you know, medieval warfare was barbaric, you know, there's no rules and it was just crazy. But ⁓ from what I can what from what I can read and what I've you know I read briefly ⁓ it wasn't like that at all. Do you mind kinda tie diving into a little bit about the misconceptions of warfare that that we've we've heard about? I mean it is brutal in that it's like man to man combat. I'm just talking it. I it's war. Right. It's war. And it's it's it's personal. You know, it's swords, it's axes. You're you're close up. It's not shooting someone with a sniper rifle from two hundred yards away or clicking a button in a bomb. You know, think of the atomic bomb. I I I believe that's immoral, but you're just dropping a bomb, you're not really seeing the devastation, you're not seeing children and women die. months later. So I'd say modern warfare is really far more horrific. But ⁓ I mean obviously it was brutal. The the misconceptions around it is that wars happen all the time or that they're extremely devastating. Wars back then, I mentioned ⁓ the income for a king for his entire realm to h to hold a three month siege to keep his men, his mustered men at war for three months was the whole year's worth of finan finances that that he had. Wars were extremely expensive. There's something else I love about the Middle Ages. If you're the Lord, it's your duty to go to war. No one's as I I think it's Saint Badid ⁓ that I quote, he said, No one's gonna follow a Lord or a king in the battle unless he's willing to lead the charge. Because it has to be so meaningful, it has to be so important. War is such a horrible thing that unless you're willing to show us that you're willing to die for this cause, then there's no way we're gonna die for this cause. And that's one of the things that drives me nuts about modern warfare's we have politicians. We have Trump starting wars all over after saying he wasn't going to. He's not sacrificing. His sons are not going to battle. He's sending citizens and he's using tax money to pay for this. He loses nothing. You're not you're we're gonna have an end continual war in modern democracy because it's not costing our politicians anything to do it. W it cost us money. So in the in the Middle Ages it was the exact opposite, which is why war was tame Also, they didn't have drafts and conscriptions back then. They were musters of men. So the Lord or or the king, whoever it is, he has he's he's parceled out these land, usually in titles to ⁓ various nobility and knights and so on. And in service they respond to his muster. So he calls them to war. He doesn't want to lose a single one of his faithful vassals. These are very important people that he knows that are loyal to him. These are I I talk about the bond between these two. I is such a great ⁓ it's like the a band of brothers type what we call ⁓ today, that sort of ⁓ friendship. So he doesn't want any of them to die. So wars they can last ⁓ if you read about a medieval war that lasts four years, sometimes it will end in a couple of dozen deaths. There's maybe three or four skirmishes w during war season, basically. And then that's the end of the war. It's not like the modern state where we where you tax fund we have the industry in conscription where we have large massive armies in the field continually fighting. No king could afford such a thing in the Middle Ages because again they couldn't tax that they didn't have a lot of wealth and these are musters of men. So it's a very small percentage of the population that's even affected by war. And you know, I quote many statistics about wars during that time period. There's very few ⁓ usually a couple dozen or a couple of hundred were killed in a war. compare that to, you know, the American Civil War, World War One, World War Two, where we just have massive casualties. So ⁓ modern warfare is far more deadly to the population than ⁓ medieval warfare. Yeah, I and he but you brought up the draft too, and I don't know if you listen to the Sean Ryan podcast at all, but he's had like ex military guys on and stuff and he he 'cause he he talks he's gotten more into like he's sick of the politicians and stuff too and he said ⁓ 'cause you brought up, you know, basically having skin in the game, right? Like your lord needs to go to battle. And you said if there was ⁓ you know, a national draft, if they brought that back and ⁓ politicians weren't exempt and their their families weren't exempt, I think we would ⁓ we would think twice and a third time about like, ⁓ do we actually want to go to war? 'Cause you just think about two our politicians, they're all older. You know, there's nothing against older. I work with older people all the time. I love old people, but You know, there there's no the real skin in the game. And if you have like these career politicians, there's no term limits on a lot of the, you know, our our representatives and they can just stay in for forty, fifty, sixty years, some of them, and it's like they're they have no idea. They have no skin in the game. It's like I'm just gonna take care of myself and I'm gonna make all these deals because I know how this works. And yeah, it's it's it's just a mess too. And, you know, but yeah, just ha having someone, you know, actually lead an army like they used to, makes them think twice, like, ⁓ do I actually want to do this? 'Cause I'm gonna have to put my life on the line now and ⁓ actually I don't want to do that 'cause that doesn't serve me 'cause, you know, I might die. That's what I said. Diplomacy will work much better if we start having our presidents in those in Congress. Like if Congress says, Okay, the United States is is going to war, okay, you lead it. We'd see you going first. If you really think it's worth it, you know, appoint someone to replace you in Congress and you go out in the field. It would change it would change ⁓ it would change a lot for sure. A hundred percent. A hundred percent. Now also if they're voters if their voters beat up the army, that's how it should be, because that's how vassals were oath bound. So like say a Democrat president wants to start a war somewhere and go, Okay, everyone who voted for that president and for this war, you're now our army and everyone who didn't just stays home. Really? That'd be nice. That's fascinating. ⁓ they so they did that. They did that and I was saying that's how it would be comparable to today. But yeah, vassals have the right to vassals have the right to to not go to war. I use some examples from the Kingdom of Jerusalem where the king wants to invade Egypt. And so of course all the vassals get together. The king can't just make these people do it. By the way, to fund that war, the invasion of Egypt, he ⁓ he raised ⁓ what was considered a massive tax of one percent. So that in their mind was a huge tax to impose for this war because it was they're in a very situate very dangerous situation. So in a very desperate attempt, the government's like, okay, we're gonna do this massive funding for a war of one percent. So that gives you an idea of what the difference between taxing then and now is. But anyway, a lot of the vassals said, No, we don't need this war. This is going to invade Egypt, even though he's throw he sh he's presenting it as protecting them because Egypt's gonna come conquer him. He said, We gotta go now, while they're weak, we we can take Cairo. And people in ⁓ the Knights Templar and some of the other vassals said, We're not in this war, this is you. And so he only took the oath ⁓ the vassals who said, Yeah, we agree to this tax, we agree to this war and ⁓ people who wouldn't agree to a tax or wouldn't go to war just weren't involved, they kinda stepped back and and so the king didn't know what kind of army he could field because he didn't know what kind of loyalty his vassals would have or what sort of funds he would be able to raise. Whereas today the government's like you're paying this, and if you don't, you go to jail or whatever it is. It's this top down ⁓ governance that they can get whatever they want, they'll print the money, they'll tax us, they'll do whatever it is, they'll conscript us because the government has that divine authority. In the Middle Ages, he was just a man and a servant, and so he couldn't do any of that, and it was all based on consent. One thing, sorry, I'm really buying feudalism that I feudalism that I loved, it was all based on consent. No one was forcing them these. You you chose a lord or you chose a village out of your own ⁓ opinion, your liking for that man or that village. So one thing we haven't talked about is the Middle Ages was extremely decentralized. So the king of France only owned a small area around Paris. Ninety-five percent of the territory of France he never interacted with had no authority from the crown. Yeah, the crown had no authority over them. There were these aut autonomous dukedoms and so on. And so people could go to different villages, go to different lords, say one's libertarian, one's Democrat, one's Republican, one's communist. You could go and choose the culture, society, laws, and village and lord that you wanted to. And that that's you know, that's consent and and that's actual self-government because you're choosing how you want to live. Whereas in America it's like, okay, you either get Republican or Democrat and it's forced on you no matter what, and you don't have that of diversity because the federal government controls all. And so under feudalism, the vassals chose their lords, they chose their customs, and and it was a personal again, consent. It's not this coercive for form of democracy that we have today. Yeah. And I wanna dive into democracy a little bit more too. Cause you know, you mentioned the taxation piece as well, and they only taxed when they kinda had to. You know, I know ⁓ I'm just thinking of like arguments against that. It's like, okay, well, you know, now we have know, national roads, you know, we have to do infrastructure. And I guess you can make the argument, you know, there's more n of a global threat. So we need a standing army. I mean, things like that. So we need these taxes. I mean, I'm just saying in general, we know these tax money is not being used, you know, to the best of the ability. We we know that is obviously true. But I'm just thinking kind of in general, if they were used for the proper good, I guess people could make the argument like, okay, yeah, well they need to do infrastructure and things like that. What'd be kind of your, I guess, counter to that? Like, well, okay, times have changed. You know, there's more people, there's more population. You know, people were hungry back then and poor, and now people are more wealthy and not as hungry, you know. What would you say to those kind of basic objections? The infrastructure part, I I mentioned in my ⁓ in the book, one of the taxes that I do like is toll. So a lot of times You'd have a lord or a monastery or someone that would create a bridge or, you know, a road and they'd maintain it and they protect it. And the people that use that road would pay the toll because they're kind of paying for protection and they're paying for the use of a bridge to cross a river that they wouldn't have. So they they had those sort of infrastructure and only the people that used it pay for it. We still have tolls today. If you use certain roads, you know, you have to you have to pay the toll. And I like that because then the person who's using it is ⁓ is paying the tax for the service. You're not making everyone pay for a service that only some are using that some might disagree with. We have, you know, how much money is wasted or spent in ways that would not be done if ⁓ if it was if it weren't if it was given at the free market. You know, the government can can do things only because it can force people to fund projects that they otherwise wouldn't because they have a monopoly on violence. So I I like the more free will if you use it than you pay for it, form of ⁓ infrastructure that they had in the Middle Ages. But it was it was definitely a downfall. That's one of the things I mentioned is we have a misconception that peasants were starving, that had they had to work all the time just to provide for themselves. They actually worked far less hours than we did. ⁓ there's some great books out there. They had so many holidays, ⁓ they had abundance of food. But what would happen is say, You have nineteen years of abundance and then a plague comes and wipes out a bunch of livestock. We don't have the refrigeration, you don't have the preservatives, you don't have the fast travel. So then a lot of people could starve to death in that situation due to the lack of infrastructure, which you can view as as a good thing, obviously, that we have today. But it's not as though they were they were fighting ⁓ starvation ⁓ all the time. And Was it the advancements? Technological advancements happen through time because we're building on people that have come before us. If America turned into a a democra or a monarchy today, we wouldn't all of a sudden lose all the technology ⁓ that we have. It it would still be there. It's not based on the form of governance. What what else was what else did you bring up? I think the infrastructure ⁓ the like a standing army because there's more global threats, because we're more connected, you know, so you can make the argument that taxes help pay for an army because, you know, we can you know, we have these nuclear bombs and stuff that can come that obviously they didn't have back then because travel was Right, yeah. I I mean, do I think we've also cut the national army in the permanent that really started again in the fourteenth century. Ha the ability for representative governments and monarchs to be able to tax permanently all year round, enable them to keep armies in the field all year round. And then warfare during that 14th century expanded, became bloodier. The government expanded. So it is a kind of you shoot yourself in the foot by doing it, by having those national armies like America and these professional armies. But what do we do? We're always at war with someone because we're involved globally across the world. So it's we're we're causing our own need for this professional army. Whereas if we kinda let people let live, stayed in America and didn't intrude on every spread democracy around the world, perhaps we wouldn't need such a powerful army because we wouldn't have so many enemies as well. But obviously times have changed. It's ⁓ I I wouldn't say there's a lot that we could do locally rather than nationally. to allow certain areas of America to somewhat go back to the Middle Ages to kind of be in these self sufficient little villages, ⁓ not interfered with by the federal government and we could still maintain a national military as well. I remember reading an article that Texas alone, like say Texas secede, became its own state, it'd be one of the most powerful economic military ⁓ countries in the world. Like I think it's like top five. That's Texas alone. I really do think America We use the fear of threats of invasion or threats of terrorists. To make us feel like we need this huge massive military. We're really, I think, if we were less intrusive on these other countries, we took on a new policy, said we're on friends with everyone, we wanna trade with everyone, we don't want to go to war, we're not gonna get involved with anything. We brought everyone back home, we'd find there there's not as many threats as we imagined originally. Yeah. No, I I agree with that a hundred percent. I mean like the wars that are going on too. I'm just like, why are we why are you even there? You know, and the whole Afghanistan thing and you know, I just you know, again, I just I'm I'm listening to a lot of Sean Ryan and he is just it's like what why are we even there? You know, like I like I had all these like close friends die. And for what? Like what what honestly did we do? Like was it better that we were there versus not? And it's just i I mean, these are these are important questions. I don't think people ask the why enough. And, you know, again, it's just we're so far removed, especially when you bring up the military and you know, it's it's not hand to hand so much anymore. It's we have these drones now and they can do these strikes and it's a person on a computer, you know, ⁓ you know, three thousand miles away that can that can, you know, launch something. So it's Yeah. I mean there's a lot of tough moral questions, I think, that there's we need to there's a great read called The Dictator's Handbook and they go through our international policy. That that's a great read if you want to know why we're involved in all these wars and why it seems like people we're portrayed as bad guys become our good guys. It all has to do with money. Like America's involved far more than we think. We have our economic tentacles. We're kind of controlling the world. We are the superpower, whether we realize it or not, and we're influencing leaders. ⁓ in their econom how their economy is, the world economy is through wars and things like that. And it's all very corrupt and it all has to do with money. It like I say in my book, how are we de protecting Americans' liberties by fighting in these wars across the world? We're not. We're protecting special interest groups in national political parties that have these economic interests across the world that aren't really for the American people. Our biggest threat I believe is Washington, DC. And it's not, you know, some third world country that's supposedly going to come terrorize us if we don't go attack them because everyone loves being attacked and that's how we're gonna make friends. I don't know. Like everyone's just dying to like, ⁓ let's go get the US. Let's just go take ⁓ out, you know. It's yeah, it's just but as you said, I 'cause fear is such a strong it's such a strong motivator, right? And I mean, dictator, we're talking about, you know, everyone thinks that monarchs were were dictators and You know, it's it's using fear to, you know, kind of push citizens a a certain direction. And you bring up actually, I was just looking at your chapter on education, you know, compulsory education. I wanted to ask you about that too. ⁓ what let me just see here. I have ⁓ let's see, you have a chapter on compulsory education where you argue that public schools are not about educating children, they're about producing compliant citizens. ⁓ and I'm actually homeschooling now. ⁓ so funny enough, we just started like six weeks ago. So we pulled them out. We're like, hey, all right, we're done with it. So I mean we it wasn't so much that piece, it was ⁓ 'cause we have two older boys and we just read how our public education well, we we were doing private ⁓ Catholic school. ⁓ but education is not meant for boys, like at all. Like sit down and d and be quiet. And it was just like to be a good student, you have to basically like don't ask questions and do everything like orderly. Yeah. And yeah, I I wanted to get your take on education because I know you have a whole ⁓ chapter on I'm looking forward to actually reading the full thing too, but ⁓ just the compulsory education. I wanted to to get your take on that and what you meant by that. Yeah, I mean i you go I go back to the history of it. It it started for two reasons. It's based on the Prussian industrial system. One is they want to create compliant, complacent workers. Because when the industrial revolution started in in the factories, they wanted to kick people off of the land to then go into the cities to work for the capitalists instead of kind of being their free self sufficient farmer or shop owner and and things along those lines. And people originally in the factories, they showed up late, they didn't complete their tasks. They said, you know, this mind numbing work. This is, you know, a form of slavery. They called it slave wage labor. And the conditions were so horrible. And so the the capitalists got together and they said, How are we going to do it? Well, what they do in Prussia. And so we institute the Prussian form of system. That's why there's a bell to bring in class because that's what they ⁓ did in the factories. You're supposed to sit at your desk, complete your task as you're told, with instructions. You're not supposed to think you're supposed to just focus on what you're doing and then do the next thing and then do the next thing. And that's what grades are for. They're they they put us in all these classes. It doesn't matter if it's beneficial to us. No one's going to like history. math, science, and so on and so on. They want to see, are you willing, are you able to set your mind to do a task regardless of if you enjoy it, if you have any interest, if it has any use for you, that you're not going to question what the teacher says. You're just going to do it exactly how they say. That's what they wanted in the factories, in the workers. They wanted the people to just shut up, obey, do whatever they're told, do the task well and do it on time. And so it's it's a training ground for that. But obviously the dogma that gets in there, every country across the world, ⁓ teaches a certain world view to its people because it wants them to think that system, that political system and economic system is the ideal, that America's the best ever. That's how I they want us to be blind patriots that we'll go to these wars whenever they call us to and fight for America. And if they tell us fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever we are is defending our freedoms at home, well, we're not gonna think about it. We're gonna have that emotional patriotic reaction because we've been taught blind obedience. America's the best. This is for good. No matter what it is, because America is good. I'm going to go risk my life in this war. And it's all about protecting the system that be in. That's why I I point out in Iraq that there's a high, very high percentage of people that believe that Islam is true, that believe that Christianity is false, that want Sharia law, that think they're their political system is the best in the world. Why is that? Because that's how they've been taught. That's what their culture teaches. That's what their education system teaches. And America's not some special country. We do the same exact thing where we create the mindset that we want and we can we create the citizenry citizenry that we want as well. That's always going to be obedient. That's always going to go along with the system and not look back, for example, at the Middle Ages, because we're going to teach them that those are the dark ages that monarchs are oppressive. And that really America is this land of freedom where the exact opposite is true. America is an oppressive authoritarian government that you can't even compare to the Middle Ages. It's not even comparable how much our lives are controlled today, but every ⁓ or ninety nine percent of Americans think they're living in this great free world and would never even consider looking at the Middle Ages for a different form of governance because that's how we've been raised. Well, even too, I remember like my US government class in I don't know when I take that like senior, junior ⁓ senior year, I think, too. And it's like democracy is is the best form of government in the world. And that's like all but that's like all you learn, right? Is this you know, like the founding fathers and the constitution and you know, like God bless them, ⁓ everything they did. I mean, obviously this America has has clearly prospered. I mean, there's st it's still a young country compared to a lot of other ones, you know. So I mean they had they had the framing right, obviously, but you know, it it just ⁓ like totally eliminate I mean obviously we can let, you know, communism, Marxism and things like that, 'cause that has just clearly failed, you know, across the ages. But, you know, I I think we we too often we look back and, you know, middle ages or medieval times are are called the dark ages, right? It's like, okay, well, you know, that's kind of things of the past. We're more sophisticated now and, you know, we're we're more intelligent than like those poor peasants back then when they, you know, they couldn't they couldn't really do anything themselves. So You know, I guess for you, Jeb, what what would be, I guess, your strongest argument or strongest case for, you know, going back to a monarchy system in the monarchy that you're talking about, not like the dictator, but like a true monarchy like you are are talking about. What would be like your strongest case for that? One thing I want to mention real quick is what's interesting is all the founding fathers hated democracy. You won't find one of them say anything good about democracy because we were a constitutional republic. And you can find in the North and New England and the South, no one thought democracy was was was a good system. And it is interesting that both Democrats and Republicans present us as a democracy and in textbooks call us a democracy and and act like it's this great thing when really all the founding fathers would have despise it for good reason too. Number one is 'cause Self governance is impossible in a democracy and it just puts everyone at war with each other. You're you're vying over power. These people are taking away your self-government. So you try to get empowered to take away their self government and so on. And ⁓ so my best argument, what I would say what I enjoy most about the Middle Ages that we don't do today is decentralization. So I was saying before, you could go back. Germany at one point was broken into over six hundred different realms, six hundred different independent autonomous ⁓ areas. Ireland, I think in nine hundred AD was two hundred realms. Northern Italy was two hundred autonomous city states. So what this does is this how tribal communities have done it, how people across the world before the last two centuries have achieved self governance is say you have one village, ⁓ that's like I said, libertarian, the next village is Republican, the next one's Democrat. And they don't gather together to find this majority to impose one way on everyone else. That's centralization. That's what we do in America. We're a centralized nation now. Instead, they'd allow self-governance in local communities. And we can easily install that in America if we want to. ⁓ my idea for America, what I'd like to see is to abolish the states completely. So there's no more Vermont, there's no more Texas. All the authority and decision and taxation that happened at the state level drops down to the county level. So now the counties are deciding what they did before at the county level and at the state level. And then what we slowly do is start taking what the federal government does, most of it, not all of it, like self-defense and so would stay national. But you take most of what the federal government does, slowly start passing that back off onto the counties. So then each county can almost become its own autonomous realm as it was in the Middle Ages. So like in Vermont, we we have a conservative county, we have a Republican county and a bunch of Democrat counties. And they're fighting over power at the state level. And obviously the Democrats end up winning. But if you gave the the sovereignty back to the counties, then the Republicans could live as they want and the Democrats could live as they want. And you don't have to fight and try to outvote each other that we you know, politics ignites hatred among people. Instead you just allow live and let live attitude. Okay, that county's gonna have a form of Christendom, that one's Catholic, that one's Mormon. Okay, allow them to do it. We're gonna be secular or whatever you whatever your county wants and stop imposing your way on everyone else. That's a huge lesson from Jared Tolkien. And so that is what I would love to see in ⁓ the United States, that we adopt that decentralization of power. in the live and let live attitude where one village could be vastly different from the next and they don't seek to impose their way on each other. They let them live as they want. I mean, wasn't that the whole reason for the civil war? Why it started? The South started South said, like, hey, this is the federal government is coming too powerful and South Carolina's like, We're gonna succeed. Right. And and that that's the huge violation of ⁓ that principle. That's that's where I say America went from a union to a centralized nation and we were no longer a self governing you know, it was it was no longer a union of consent of these states that came together in agreement. Like in the Middle Ages, it'd be like vassals coming together in agreement. That's what the union was. And then after that the military or Lincoln said, no, you are here by force. If you try to leave, we're gonna invade you and kill you. And that destroys that whole self governance. And so that's where we went astray in in America for sure. But I I have an article in the Abbottville Institute where I say, would states rights solve our issue? And no, it wouldn't. Texas right now has the population that the United States had in 1860. If you told everyone in 1860, north and south, that we're going to put you all under this one state government, they they would kill you. They'd say you're insane. Why would so many people live under one state government? But we're doing that in Texas. I did a talk in Houston and they're there, it's a very liberal Marxist county, but Texas is obviously conservative. So they don't like they're libertarian and conservative, this group I talked to, they don't like being controlled in the county by the Marxists. Well, the Marxists in that county don't like being controlled by the conservatives across Texas. I don't understand why we can't allow that self-governance at that local level. Subsidiarity is is a Catholic teaching. It's in the ⁓ catechism. And so it teaches that local control is best and you only pass on to the higher level what the local can't do. So whatever a county can't do, you s you send that to the state, or my idea would be to the federal and we just have the county and the federal. But yeah, I I believe local control is the way to go. Well, I mean, that's that concept is even biblical too. Like, remember when ⁓ Moses and his father in law, his father in law is like, Moses, what are you doing, man? Like pick other people to and delegate these tasks to you because you're overwhelming yourself and you can't you can't take on the burdens of all the people. Like you have to decentralize. I mean, and that's I mean, all good leaders understand that. And it's like, why don't we understand that at the very top level? Like the best organizations are like like, okay, this is this is what I do, this is what I focus on, and I'm gonna get good people under me and they can do all these other tasks and I'm gonna trust them to do the job. Like why why in every other part, like businesses and things like that, we do that and then our government level is like No, we need everything here. Everything's gotta have everything ⁓ you know, this is our this is our file, this is our little sticky note for this part, you know, it's like all it's just it's too much. But ⁓ Right, especially with the population the way it is and the the diversity, the people gain from local control. We get back self governance. The re the real reason is money. And 'cause when you centralize power, then the people who who want that power that want to have every everything their way for their benefit, they're gonna get their way when you centralize it all. They're not doing it. They're not thinking of us and what's best for us. They're thinking of what's best for them. That's you know, that's the interest group and in the lobbyists and so on. And the the politicians, it's a perfect system for corruption, in in my mind, but what we have. Centralized democracy is the per perfect system for it. And so that's what we get. It's not that they don't know, it's that they have their own ⁓ interests and we allow people who want power to be inf to gain power and then to be influenced by these people. Which is part of why they want power in it in the first place, because they're gonna get handouts. It well, one thing, it's the Middle Ages was not without this. Once we start again, when we returned Roman law, you know, the Rome had the Senate, we had representative governments. That's not the origin of freedoms. That was the beginning where it got taken away from the people and placed on these representatives. The then the king could just manage these couple of representatives, they'd make deals for each other. It started back in the fourteenth century. And that is when propaganda began. It didn't start with, you know, Marx Karl Marx or or anything like that. It started way back in the fourteenth century. 'Cause once you have representatives that speak for the people, supposedly, they want to control how the people think. And so that's when propaganda started. Interesting. Fascinating. And before I let you go, Jeb, I wanna ask you about Robin Hood, 'cause there you had a chapter ⁓ I noticed or an appendix in the appendix ⁓ on Robin Hood. Do you mind if I we dive into Robin Hood a little bit? Sorry. Yeah. Let's see here. ⁓ it says reveal ⁓ it just says revealing Robin Hood. So I'll I'll just kinda let you take it away. What ⁓ what about Robin Hood that applies to the middle to the middle the middle ages? I can't even speak. So What what I'd been taught about Robin Hood. I watched Kevin Costner's ⁓ Robin Hood and to me that's Robin Hood. I love that movie. Absolutely. Totally accurate story, I'm sure. ⁓ Morgan Freeman was cre ⁓ completely made up creation, you know. And and you look, he's Christian in every way except that he bows ⁓ towards ⁓ Mako when he prayed, but like his character and the way he is. Anyway, ⁓ So I was taught basically Robin Hood to be summed up was steal from the rich and give to the poor. He was kind of in Vermont, we were taught he's this socialist sort of hero who was the enemy of these greedy rich people and he gave it to the poor. Well, you go back to the h his history in the original ballards, ⁓ he was actually an Anglo-Saxon. And what happened is the government started again after the Norman conquest to become corrupt and it arbitrarily raised taxes on people. So people were made. Because the government increased its power, increases tax. So what Robin would do with he was he was actually a lord. He was not, I mean, he was a r aristocrat himself. And he he practiced what the Middle Ages would I call rebellion to tyrants, his obedience to God. ⁓ the government became oppressive, it expanded past its bounds. He resisted it. He went back and took from the government the money that it had stolen that was rightly the people, because back then ⁓ direct taxation is theft. It's not like it's not an accepted practice. If you're gonna take people's money, that's a form of theft. And he go back, steal the money, give it back to the people who he was who the government was stealing from. So it's not like this anti rich, pro poor sort of Marxists at war with each other. It's really a guy who's standing up for the law in the traditional form of kingship that existed in resisting oppressive ⁓ government taxation. There's almost like a form of justice. Yeah. Yeah. In a sense. Yeah. Which which by the way we didn't we didn't touch on, but that's part of the law in the feudal contract, is that it they are supposed to resist their lord or their king if he oversteps his bounds. It's part of the law. Like today, if the federal government declares something, we have to obey regardless just because it's them that said it. Back then it was up to the lords and the people and the church that if this lord or king overstepped his bounds, it's now our obligation to resist them. Because he's at war with the it's our job to protect the people, to protect the law, which is what Robin Hood was doing. So he was legally resisting the government, which seems like an oxymoron today. But was not Yeah, that is. Well, it's so interesting too, because, you know, being in the Catholic Church too, if if a bishop or a priest were to tell you something that ⁓ goes against natural law, goes against, you know, the teachings of the church, you are obligated as a a lay man and woman to actually resist and to And to ⁓ to not do that whatever said action was. But yeah, when it comes to government, like, no, you can't do that. We're gonna throw you in jail and in prison and stuff too. I just ⁓ I it made me think of ⁓ I it was either on YouTube or Facebook. It was this is this real or f whatever Facebook is and it said it was this guy and he was like he was like I the IRS. He's like, Okay, it's April fifteenth, you owe me you owe me money and it pans to the To the the same guy, but he's like a citizen. He goes, Okay, so how much do I owe you? Pans back to IRS. I don't know, you tell us. And he pans back to this guy. He's like, Wait a minute, how am I supposed to know if I owe you anything? It pans IRS. Like, I don't know, you gotta figure it out. And he goes back to this. So, so what if I just give you a random number? It's like, well, if you don't pay us enough money, then we will charge you and you need to pay us a balance. And he's like, So, okay, so why don't you just tell me how much I owe you? He's like, No, you gotta figure that out on your own. It's like make it make it make sense, you know? It just it's insane. But but Jeb, ⁓ it's been great chatting with you. You know, I I did see too your your book on the Civil War, which I I might have to get and have you back on to discuss that because the Civil War is a very fascinating topic for me. But I will leave you, ⁓ let you kinda have the final word, any parting ⁓ thoughts you wanna give on the book and then where can people learn more about you and where obviously they can purchase the book as well. Yeah, ⁓ you can purchase the book on Amazon or Census Vadelium Press ⁓ dot com. I also have a book titled Defending the Middle Ages as well. That's available on both of those. And as you said, Defending Dixie's land is shotwell publishing dot com and also Amazon. Speaking of the Civil War, I'm I'm nearly completed a new book, which I would love to send you a PDF or a paperback ⁓ for free that you could review to see if you'd like to discuss it, 'cause I feel like ⁓ that's definitely gonna be a good ⁓ interesting read if you enjoy the civil war. ⁓ you can follow me on X, ⁓ Jeb Smith764 and also on Facebook as well, where I update podcasts, articles, ⁓ interviews, anything book related. My webpage, author Jebsmith.com, will be out in a few days. Fantastic. I will keep a lookout and by the time we post this, I'm sure it'll be up. So I will be sure to include all of these links in the show notes for everyone. Well, Jeb, thank you so much for coming onto the podcast. I I really enjoyed our conversation and and hopefully ⁓ another one in the near future. And thank you all so much for tuning in and listening. And until next time, go out there and be a saint. Brothers, thank you so much for listening to this episode. If the show's add value to your life, I'm going to ask you to do three things. Share with a brother who needs it, leave us a review, and finally support the show so we can keep fighting. Links are in the show notes. We'll see you next week.