Myth, Dialectics, and Thymos

A Solution to Monarchism’s Erbfeindschaft Dilemma

Introduction

In this essay, I wish to address a divisive issue between monarchists of different nationalities, an issue that can be best described as the Erbfeindschaft Dilemma. This dilemma is the unavoidable enmity between peoples, or in this case, certain royalist groups which is deeply rooted in history.

One example would be the Hohenzollern royalists in Germany and the Bonapartists in France. A German monarchist told me that his fellow German monarchists view House Bonaparte rather dimly due to the legacy of the Napoleonic Wars. I would not be surprised if this feeling is mutual among the Bonapartists, considering that Prussia was one of the belligerents who fought Napoleon in the legendary “Battle of Nations” at Leipzig and over half a century later led a German alliance that defeated Napoleon III, resulting in his loss of the throne.

Granted, the account mentioned above is merely anecdotal evidence. However, given the lack of statistical data on this topic, it is the only evidence I can provide at the time of this writing. Moreover, given the deep history of clashes between empires, I’m sure that my fellow monarchists would attest to the fact that the Erbfeindschaft effect on monarchists is very much real no matter how understudied it is.

Now, I understand the strong feelings monarchists would have towards particular dynasties. Nonetheless, I must emphatically remind them all that this should not be allowed to blind them from the bigger picture. In order for them to restore their own dynasties to their thrones, a new international order that is more friendly to monarchy is needed. And for such an order to emerge, nations that have lost their monarchies must be allowed to regain them, even if it means that a dynasty one dislikes returns to power.

Now, anyone who understands the nature of politics knows that dedicated members of any movement are driven more often by fiery sentiment than cold pragmatism. It is that very sentiment that also turns monarchists against each other ironically. Therefore, the Erbfeindschaft Dilemma cannot be solved by appealing to pragmatism or mutual interest. It is a fool’s errand to fight against historical narratives, especially when they are tied deeply with loyalist and/or nostalgic sentiments that kindle the hearts of monarchists. Instead, we must recast those narratives in a different light; weave them together into a greater whole. To achieve this, we must first turn to Georges Sorel and his idea of “myth.”

Sorel’s Insights on Myth

A French revolutionary syndicalist, Sorel introduced the concept of “myth” as a powerful motivator for collective action. In his view, myths are not mere falsehoods but rather compelling narratives or images that inspire and mobilize groups toward achieving significant social or political goals. These myths encapsulate the shared aspirations and emotions of a movement, serving as a unifying force that drives participants to action:

“[M]en who are participating in a great social movement always picture their coming action as a battle in which their cause is certain to triumph.”¹

Georges Sorel (1847-1922)

Sorel emphasized that myths should be understood as whole entities, functioning as historical forces that shape human behavior. He cautioned against dissecting myths through scientific analysis, arguing that their true power lies in their ability to evoke a collective will to act, transcending rational deliberation. For instance, the early Christian anticipation of an impending apocalypse, despite not materializing, effectively galvanized believers and strengthened the movement’s resolve.

Central to Sorel’s theory is the idea of the “catastrophic myth,” which predicts a transformative upheaval leading to profound societal change. Such myths foster a sense of inevitability and urgency, compelling individuals to commit to the cause without compromise. In Sorel’s perspective, the efficacy of a myth is measured by its capacity to inspire decisive action and its influence as a historical force, rather than its literal truth.

Now, it should be noted that while myths can and have been used to achieve utopian visions, myths and utopias are two completely separate things.

Sorel distinguished utopia is an “intellectual product.” His explanation was thus:

“[I]t is the work of theorists who, after observing and discussing the known facts, seek to establish a model to which they can compare existing society in order to estimate the amount of good and evil it contains. It is a combination of imaginary institutions having sufficient analogies to real institutions for the jurist to be able to reason about them. … Whilst contemporary myths lead men to prepare themselves for a combat which will destroy the existing state of things, the effect of Utopias has always been to direct men’s minds towards reforms which can be brought about by patching up the existing system…”²

Sorel goes on to explain that myths—unlike utopias, theories and hypotheses—are neither true nor false. Facts can never disprove it (though they cannot prove it either):

“A myth cannot be refuted, since it is, at bottom, identical with the convictions of a group, being the expression of these convictions in the language of movement; and it is, in consequence, unanalyzable…”³

To summarize, “[t]he myths are not descriptions of things, but expressions of a determination to act.”⁴

In his analysis of Sorel’s theory, James Burnham observed that myths—because they’re not scientific—are not required to align with facts, but there are not arbitrary:

“Not just any myth will do. A myth that serves to weld together a social group—nation, people, or class—must be capable of arousing their most profound sentiments and must at the same time direct energies toward the solution of the real problems which the group faces in its actual environment.”⁵

Again, we return to the words of Sorel:

“Use must be made of a body of images which, by intuition alone, and before any considered analyses are made, is capable of evoking as an undivided whole the mass of sentiments which corresponds to the different manifestations of the war undertaken by Socialism against modern society. … It is a question of knowing what are the ideas which most powerfully move [active revolutionists] and their comrades, which most appeal to them as being identical with their socialistic conceptions, and thanks to which their reason, their hopes, and their way of looking at particular facts seem to make but one indivisible unity.”⁶

The Sorellian concept of the “myth” highlights the significance of emotionally charged narratives in uniting and propelling groups toward collective action, underscoring the profound impact of shared beliefs on historical developments. If such compelling narratives could unite monarchists internationally, it would not only resolve—or at least mitigate—the divisiveness of the Erbfeindschaft Dilemma, but also spur monarchists to take action.

So what exactly should our Sorellian Myth be? Could such a myth unite a community as ideologically, culturally and religiously diverse as monarchists?

Historical Dialectic

As I’ve stated above, the legacies of conflicting monarchical legends—the Bonapartes, the Hohenzollerns and so on—must be portrayed as part of something greater. The alliances, rivalries and wars that emerge between nations are all part of a historical dialectic. This should not be mistaken for the Hegelian concept of historical dialectic, which is centered around the idea of a rational process leading toward the actualization of human freedom. Rather, this dialectic focuses on the process in which civilizations evolve and progress in the face of inevitable conflict.

“The Entry of Napoleon into Berlin” — An 1810 painting by the French artist Charles Meynier. It depicts the entry of the French Emperor Napoleon into the Prussian capital Berlin on 27 October 1806, following his victory at the Battle of Jena.

Dynasties are best suited to guide their nations in the intricate ballet due to two unique qualities. First, through blood and tradition, monarchs serve as a living connection between the nation and its history. And second, due to familial rule, dynasties are the most foresighted of rulers, especially in comparison to politicians who are blinkered by term limits. With both of these qualities, together with the power and wisdom needed to rule effectively, dynasties can guide their peoples through times of war and strife. Generational wisdom would be passed down from sovereign to sovereign, preparing them to forge the next link in the chain of their nation’s history. Every so often, the strength of those chains are tested by the flames of conflict, encouraging future generations to adapt and refine themselves further. Wars and rivalries, regardless of their justifications, are to the evolution of civilization what a hammer and anvil are to metal.

Without these conflicts, be they driven by ideology, faith, dynastic disputes or mere ambition, the rot of complacency and decadence—the most sinister poisons of civilization—would erode the foundations of society. Such damage is far greater on the social fabric of society than that of war. And it is through war and social upheaval that complacency and decadence is burned away.

Yes, evil regimes sometimes prevail in wars and revolutions, but they too would inevitably collapse when their rulers, institutions and mechanisms are too dysfunctional. Wickedness and stupidity always reap the downfall of the elites who perpetuate them. No matter how long it takes, the pendulum always swings back and the march of the dialectic continues ever onwards.

Should monarchists take this view of history to its logical conclusion, they would come to see opposing dynasties not as enemies, but as dynamic forces spurring each other’s empires to refine themselves in the crucible of war.

Now, there is much more to this historical dialectic than the progress that emerges from conflict. Here, I have only touched on the products of this historical dialectic, but not its main driving force. At the core of all dynasties and empires lies a common paradigm: the Thymotic Spirit.

The Spirit of Great Men

In The Republic, Plato argued that the human soul is divided into three elements.⁷ Those elements have been labelled as thus:

The Epithymetikon — The appetitive part that deals with bodily desires, such as food, drink, and sex.

The Logistikon — The rational part that thinks, analyzes, and seeks knowledge and truth.

The Thymoeides (or Thymos) — The spirited part of the soul that contains anger, ambition, and other emotions

The Thymoeides—or the Thymotic Spirit—encompasses our concepts of challenge, honor, and victory as well as our desires for recognition, status and greatness. It is the flame within all great men of history, the driving force that shapes them into dynamic individuals of strong character who alter the course of history according to their abilities. Through these individuals, the Thymotic Spirit—the drive for honor, ambition and greatness—shapes the historical dialectic.

It should go without saying that not every leader in this paradigm is morally good. There are plenty of “great men” who have left destructive legacies in the annals of history. One can easily find a plethora of evil examples, historical ones such as Hitler and Stalin as well as contemporary ones like Putin.

However, there is also a multitude of “great men” whose legacies have impacted the world for the better. Such examples range include the philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius, enlightened despots like Friedrich the Great and Catherine the Great, victorious warriors like Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte, and brilliant statesmen like Clemens von Metternich, Benjamin Disraeli, Otto von Bismarck and Winston Churchill.

One does not need to be royalty be become a “great man of history.” However, all great dynasties have been founded by such people. The Carolingians and Bonapartes, for example, were founded by commoners who have ascended and gained their crowns through the sheer strength of their characters and skills. And when the crowns of great men were passed down to their descendants, their legacies lived on through those lineages.

We must recognize that, deep down, all “great men” in the history of monarchies—like all other “great men”—share a common identity in the sense that they are grounded in the same paradigm. They are all forged and tempered in the flames of the Thymotic Spirit to become dynamic agents of the historical dialectic. Through this understanding of history, monarchists would hopefully see rival sovereigns in a new light, one of understanding if not respect. When all great monarchs are regarded as agents of history, simply playing their part in the evolution of civilization, enmity over historical grievances no longer has a place in one’s heart.

Conclusion: A Sorellian Myth for Monarchists

The Erbfeindschaft Dilemma has divided monarchists for far too long, keeping them locked in cycles of historical grievance rather than united in a shared vision for the future. Yet, as Sorel teaches us, movements do not rise through cold logic and pragmatism alone. They require myths—narratives that speak to the deepest instincts and emotions of their adherents. Monarchism, an international community fractured by national and dynastic rivalries, must forge such a myth if it is to survive and thrive in the modern world.

As Karl has argued in The Power of Historical Narratives, monarchists must construct a shared narrative to counter those that dominate the modern world order:

“I propose that we monarchists develop our own historical narrative. We must find conflicts in the past that pertains to our ideology, heroes whose deeds inspire us, villains who reminds us of who our enemies are, and to weave conflicts of the past into a common thread that unites us. Through this, we define the common cause of both the past struggles of our heroes and the current struggle we find ourselves in.”⁸

This essay builds upon that foundation by proposing a Sorellian myth rooted in a historical dialectic driven by the Thymotic Spirit. It is a vision of history in which monarchs, far from being mere relics of the past, are active agents in the grand process of civilization’s refinement. Wars, alliances, rivalries—these are not mere disruptions but integral forces shaping the course of history. In this light, dynastic conflicts are no longer sources of division but necessary trials through which the strength and wisdom of monarchs are tested and renewed.

By embracing this myth, monarchists can transcend the old divisions that keep them weak. They can recognize in each rival dynasty not an enemy, but a counterpart—another torchbearer of the same timeless tradition, another lineage forged by the same fires of Thymos. If monarchists can reframe their historical consciousness in this way, they can transform their movement from a scattered collection of nostalgic factions into a dynamic force with a shared mission: the restoration of kingship as the natural and rightful order of civilization. A key element to an international victory for Monarchists is a shared historical consciousness on an international scale. Royalist groups must incorporate this meta-narrative into their own, thereby building bridges between each other—and ultimately—towards monarchical restoration. This does not mean that the legacy of one’s cherished dynasty should be diminished, but that no other dynasty’s legacy ought to be diminished.

The question that remains is whether monarchists are willing to let go of old resentments and adopt this vision. If they can, they may yet see the return of their sovereigns. If they cannot, they will remain divided, and their thrones will remain empty.

References

1. Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence, p. 22

2. Ibid. pp. 32-33

3. Ibid., p. 33

4. Ibid., p. 32

5. James Burnham, The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom, pp. 136-137

6. Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence, pp. 130-137

7. Plato, The Republic (Penguin Classics), pp. 139-149

8. https://radicalmonarchists.substack.com/p/the-power-of-historical-narratives