Contra Heimbach: Long Live America!

12/23/14, by Clement Pulaski


In a recent speech entitled “Death To America”, Matthew Heimbach makes several false statements about the founding fathers and the nature of traditional Americanism.

His argument can be broken down into two main points:
1) that America was founded as part of a Judeo-Masonic plot, and therefore has been hostile to folk and faith since its inception; and
2) that autocratic monarchy is the best form of government for white Christians.


Regarding the first point, Heimbach ignores the complex historical development of the English colonies in the New World. Upon examining this history, the American Revolution no longer appears as a violent rupture with the past, but as the inevitable outcome of the American character. Long before the writing of the Constitution, colonists were framing their own legal documents for self-government. These documents, such as the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639) and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641), clearly presaged the Constitutional ideas of personal rights, equality before the law, and limits on governmental power. In New England especially, the colonists came from a largely middle class background. This meant that the aristocracy of the old country was not transplanted to the colonies, forcing the colonists to develop a new form of government, one in which men of equal legal status (though of unequal personal ability and wealth) selected their own magistrates. After the American Revolution, some of the new states simply kept their colonial law codes, while others altered them only slightly.

These independent, anti-monarchical tendencies of English Protestant dissenters were amplified by the pioneer experience. Without the help of kings and noblemen, the colonists successfully fought against the barbaric forces of the New World. Independence from the crown was thus not a theory; it was an accomplished fact. By the time the American Revolution broke out, the colonists had shared 150 years of struggle against the savage wilderness and the savage natives inhabiting it. They had suffered and died building a white, Christian civilization. In this process, an organic nation with distinct characteristics had been formed. The Revolution was not fomented by alien influences wishing to destroy the American nation; it was a pure expression of the national spirit. This same spirit can be seen in Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, the creation of the Texas Republic, the Secession of the South, and in all the pioneers who penetrated deeper and deeper into the continent, setting up republican institutions wherever they went. If the American Revolution is a Judeo-Masonic plot, then all of these other rebellions must be Judeo-Masonic plots as well.

Heimbach attacks the founding fathers for being greedy capitalists with no loyalty to folk and faith. The main evidence he cites for this is that taxation was a major issue in the Revolution. This is a strange argument, because it implies that economic grievances are illegitimate. In our current situation, surely Americans have legitimate grievances against the Federal Reserve, against private banks, against a government that allows the immigration of cheap labor and the outsourcing of jobs, and even against the high taxes that are used to fund Zionist wars and a welfare state for the dark-skinned masses that are replacing us in our own country. I doubt that Heimbach would label these grievances as evidence of disloyalty to folk and faith. The American colonists lived under a system where a monarch on the other side of the ocean could destroy their local economies through the imposition of taxes and trade restrictions (taxes and restrictions that could favor British merchants and trade monopolies). One of the groups that protested against British economic oppression was the Daughters of Liberty. This society of women worked to create an underground economy of homemade goods, mostly food and clothing, that could meet the needs of the colonists without contributing to the tax revenue of the hated empire. This type of grassroots, communal organization is exactly what Heimbach recommends for white nationalists today. Heimbach seems to think that this type of organization can be used to build a new, organic ethnic identity. He is certainly correct on this point, but fails to acknowledge that this process already took place in America's past and led to the creation of the organic American nation.

Another issue ignored by Heimbach is that the King and his appointees in the colony could be just as greedy as any American merchants, and that many of the American colonists sought to combat greed. In his book Usury In Christendom, Michael Hoffman notes that the New England Puritans set up industrial cooperatives that were meant to operate with low profits for the benefit of the community. Similarly, prior to the Revolution some southern Colonies attempted to ban the importation of Negro slaves. The king overruled this desire of the colonists, likely with an eye to the extreme profitability of slave plantations.

Heimbach also fails to consider that taxation was only one of many grievances that drove the colonies to rebellion. In 1774, the British parliament passed what came to be known as “The Intolerable Acts”. These acts included: shutting down the port of Boston, revoking the Massachusetts Charter and making nearly all local magistrates royal appointees, allowing royal agents to be tried in England for crimes committed in America, forcing the quartering of British troops in the colonies, and extending the territory of Quebec. This last measure, the Quebec Act, is especially significant because it shows that the Revolution was fought for folk and faith. The Quebec Act not only ceded territory that was part of the original charters of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia, but it ceded it to French Catholics. It showed that the king was willing to favor men of foreign religion and culture in order to gain an advantage over his own Anglo-Saxon subjects. One undeniable trait of the American nation is the fervent, unstoppable desire to spread Anglo-Saxon, Protestant civilization across the continent. The king and his parliament were always less enthusiastic about this project than the Americans were, as the former were always preoccupied with European politics and the advantages that could be gained in this arena by shifting colonial borders and alliances. To the colonists, however, the North American continent was their home, as well as a birth right given to them by the sacrifices of previous generations of pioneers. They refused to allow their birth right to become a bargaining chip in European politics, and frequently showed little respect for the territorial claims of foreign monarchs who did not shed their own blood in winning the land from the savages. According to Heimbach, a king is inherently loyal to his own folk. But the king of England had a very limited loyalty to the Anglo-Saxon folk of the colonies, as we can see from the fact that the king ceded land to a people alien in culture and religion, that he employed foreign troops against the colonists, and that he even used the savage red men against the Americans up until the War of 1812.

America is an organic nation. There are many, such as myself, who are of mixed European ancestry, born and raised in America, Protestant, and English-speaking. If we are not American, we are nothing. We persist as Americans, despite the fact that our government is corrupt and acts against our interests. Granted, as a group we are confused about the racial component of our identity, but we are no more confused on this point than white Englishmen or any other white nation in Western Europe.


I have already discussed at length (here and here) what I call “lies about American freedom”. These lies, which usually come from the Left, include the absurd idea that the Constitution guarantees the freedom to practice sodomy and satanism. Unfortunately, Heimbach buys into these leftist arguments and uses 21st century perversions of the Constitution to argue that the Constitution is corrupt in its essence. He does this, despite the fact that early America was a thoroughly Christian nation with a very high standard of public morality, despite the fact that sodomy and blasphemy were illegal under state and local law when the Constitution was adopted, despite the fact that up until the 1960s open sodomites and satanists were not publicly tolerated anywhere in America, and despite the fact that the framers of the Constitution explicitly stated that religion and morality are necessary in order for their system to function.

Heimbach also buys into the lie that the American Revolution and the French Revolution are essentially the same in spirit. As was shown above, the American Revolution represented a continuation of the religious and political constitution of the colonies. The American Revolution did not result in a reign of terror, nor a lowering of public morality or piety. Much of the American clergy strongly supported the Patriotic cause. By contrast, the French Revolution resulted in the genocide of the nobility, attacks upon the Church, and the raising up of the dregs of society. I also point out that even Matthew Raphael Johnson, an Orthodox priest and an outspoken monarchist, refuses to put the founding fathers in the same category as the French Jacobins, citing the strong influence of Classical Roman republicanism on the former. Jacobin ideas were not at work in American Revolution, and they did not become a major force in America until the rise of the abolitionist movement, something that was apparent to the Southerners who fought to maintain the original spirit of the Constitution. this great struggle, we defend the cause of God and religion. The abolition spirit is undeniably atheistic. The demon which erected its throne upon the guillotine in the days of Robespierre and Marat, which abolished the Sabbath and worshipped reason in the person of a harlot, yet survives to work other horrors, of which those of the French Revolution are but the type. Among a people so generally religious as the American, a disguise must be worn; but it is the same old threadbare disguise of the advocacy of human rights.
-Benjamin M. Palmer

The radical objection to the righteousness of slavery in most minds is, that it violates the natural liberty and equality of man. To clear this matter, it is our purpose to test the common theory held as to the rights of nature, and to show that this ground of opposition to slavery rests upon a radical and disorganizing scheme of human rights, is but Jacobinism in disguise, and involves a denial of all authority whatsoever.
-R.L. Dabney

Heimbach argues that American identity is meaningless because a Somalian immigrant can show up, receive a piece of paper saying that he is a citizen, and thereby “become an American”. By using this contemporary American practice as an indictment against the founding fathers, Heimbach supports the Leftist lie that America has always been a nation of brown immigrants. Against Heimbach's Somalian example, it is necessary to point out that the earliest American immigration law restricted citizenship to “free white persons”. That is, in the America of the founding fathers, a Somalian could not become an American. Furthermore, a Somalian can just as easily enter the UK and “become British” as he can “become an American”. If we are using current racial policies to condemn the American system of 200 years ago, then we must be consistent and condemn the British system of 200 years ago as well. We should also ask, if Americanism is the cause of modern degeneracy and monarchy is the bulwark against this degeneracy, then why can't we point to a single Western European nation that is better off than America? Why is Canada, an English colony that remained loyal to the King, the most degenerate, hyper-PC country on earth? And why are the British royals themselves just as fervently is favor of diversity as our elected officials?

Speaking of the current British monarch, Heimbach explains that he does not like the Queen, so he will not follow her. But does this not go against the entire principle of monarchy? Is not the whole point of monarchy that you do not get to choose who your ruler is, even if they are unjust or immoral? If we (and presumably British nationalists as well) can oppose the current Queen and her support for diversity, then how are we any different from the founding fathers?

Finally, Heimbach condemns America for being a “proposition nation” based on ideology, not blood and soil. We have already seen that early America was not a proposition nation in sense that that term is used today, because there were racial and cultural requirements for becoming an American. With that being said, it is true that early America did have an ideological component in addition to its racial and cultural components. But in his speech, Heimbach himself admits that tribal identity is in part ideological when he argues that “wiggers” have effectively excommunicated themselves from the white race by their cultural and ideological choices. Heimbach further confirms the ideological component of ethnic identity when he lays out his proposal for the creation of a new “Avalonian” ethnic identity that would include adherence to monarchy and Eastern Orthodox Christianity in its definition.


Having dismissed the republicanism of the founding fathers, Heimbach suggests that monarchy is the ideal form of government. As noted above, Heimbach proposes the ethnonym “Avalonian” for his new tribe of monarchists. The term “Avalonian” reflects Heimbach's fairy tale understanding of how monarchy works. According to Heimbach, a monarch is inherently loyal to his folk and inherently immune to worldly corruption. This understanding of monarchy shows a profound ignorance of history. European monarchs—even the Russian Tsar—often sought loans from bankers, including the Jewish Rothschilds. Monarchs are also prone to exploit their subjects and arbitrarily to grant wealth and privilege to their favorite sycophants. These failings of monarchy are clearly spelled out in 1 Samuel 8:

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
-1 Samuel 8:6-20

The Bible is clear that the system of the judges was superior to monarchy, and there is nothing in this passage to support Heimbach's faith in the inherent advantages of monarchy. If someone might object that the passage from 1 Samuel 8 should apply only to Saul, the first king given to the Israelites, it is necessary to point out that the power of the kingship was abused by the greatest saints of the Old Testament era. Even David, the man after God's own heart, abused his royal authority, engaging in murder and adultery. Even Solomon the wise was corrupted by the multitude of foreign wives that his royal position allowed him to acquire. There is no reason to think that the average king would better resist the temptations of his office than David did. The above passage from 1 Samuel closely links the Israelite desire for a king with their tendency to emulate their heathen neighbors. This is not surprising given the strong link between monarchy and idolatry. Idolatry trusts in material objects to possess supernatural power, while monarchy trusts in certain men to surpass our common fallen nature. In oriental kingdoms, the king was often worshiped as a quasi-divine figure, if not outright as a god. It should be noted that this passage from 1 Samuel was cited in Common Sense, the famous pamphlet by Thomas Paine that argued in favor of American separation from England.

I also cite an interesting passage from 1 Maccabees which offers a very positive description of the Roman republic. (As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, Heimbach would consider 1 Maccabees to be canonical). Following a passage describing the great military triumphs of Rome, the text states that:

Yet for all this none of them wore a crown or was clothed in purple, to be magnified thereby: Moreover how they had made for themselves a senate house, wherein three hundred and twenty men sat in council daily, consulting alway for the people, to the end they might be well ordered: And that they committed their government to one man every year, who ruled over all their country, and that all were obedient to that one, and that there was neither envy nor emmulation among them.
1 Maccabees 8:14-16

There is no indication that the author of 1 Maccabees thinks the republican system of Rome to be degenerate or inferior to monarchy in any way. On the contrary, he seems struck by the harmony, efficiency, and virtue displayed by the republic. The founding fathers had a similar respect for republican Rome and the confederacies of ancient Greece. In forming their own theories of government, their profound respect for the Classics is apparent.

"Our fathers, learning wisdom from the experiments of Rome and of Greece—the one a consolidated republic, and the other strictly a confederacy—and taught by the lessons of our own experiment under the Confederation, came together to form a Constitution for 'a more perfect union,' and, in my judgment, made the best government which has ever been instituted by man."
-Jefferson Davis

One of the lessons that our founding fathers learned from the Classics was that autocratic monarchy is an oriental custom that leads to overbearing pride and degeneracy. Both Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar became seduced by the oriental institution of the god-king, which provoked the resentment of their comrades. The actions of Tarquin the Proud and the excesses of the frequently demented Caesars made the founders understandably suspicious of monarchical power.

In addition to the models provided by the Bible and the Greco-Roman republics, the founding fathers also looked to the ancient traditions of the Anglo-Saxons and the Germans. They were intrigued by the accounts of Tacitus that described the more or less republican institutions of the ancient Germans. While a type of king did exist in these societies, his power was limited, and he very little resembled the Egyptian Pharaoh or the Roman Caesar. This republican type of deliberative government was common amongst our ancestors, whether in the Anglo-Saxon Folkmoot, the Scandinavian Thing, or the Slavic Veche. With the romanization of northern and eastern Europe throughout the middle ages, the autocratic Caesar was more and more seen as the ideal in both temporal and ecclesiastical government. Many early Americans saw the American Revolution as an effort to restore the Anglo-Saxon liberties that had been lost after the Norman invasion. This understanding of Americanism led Jefferson Davis to say that his fellow Southerners possessed “a devotion to the principles of civil liberty and community independence, which they had inherited from their Anglo-Saxon ancestry, and which were set forth in the Declaration of Independence.”

While it is easy to counter Heimbach's superficial disregard for the founding fathers, the real point of contention is not to be found in the facts surrounding the American Revolution, but in his theological presuppositions. Heimbach and many of his comrades are members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and they are committed to the idea that Orthodox tradition cannot err. Hence the political systems of the great Eastern Orthodox empires (Byzantium and Russia) must be good and just, even though these empires are known for their oriental autocracy and corrupt palace intrigue, even though the Byzantines crumbled in the face of Islam, and even though the Russian Tsar created the miserable conditions that brought about the Bolshevik Revolution. But as bad as the picture-worship and Marian idolatry of the eastern Church may be, it is to be feared that Heimbach and his comrades are also influenced by far more sinister strains of thought.


Heimbach identifies as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, but he and his comrades at the Traditional Youth Network promote the ideas of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola. In the power point presentation accompanying his speech, Heimbach displays a large image of Evola. Evola's book “The Metaphysics of War”, which praises the Islamic warrior tradition, is recommended reading for prospective “Avalonians”. Guenon and Evola were outspoken enemies of the Church, and it is strange that self-professed Christians would draw inspiration from their works.

Guenon and Evola were occultists who were fixated on secret initiations and magic. Guenon was at first a Catholic and later a Muslim, but the whole time he saw these religions as pale reflections of an imaginary “Primordial tradition” from which all contemporary faiths have descended. He thought that Hinduism most closely resembled the “Primordial tradition”, but he still encouraged his followers to join other religions while secretly adhering to his more enlightened view. Evola, one of Guenon's followers, was at first a Nietzchean, and then went on to study the strains of Eastern mysticism that exalt the spiritual power of the individual to reshape the world. Guenon and Evola went about picking and choosing disparate fragments from various world religions in order to reconstruct a body of beliefs that supposedly constituted the “Primordial tradition”, a body of beliefs that have been traditionally held by no one. In their pseudo-history of the world, which explains the origin of the races by referencing “Hyperborea” and the mythical lost continents of Atlantis and Lemuria, Guenon and Evola posit an essentially one-way decline of culture and religion. This decline is explained as an antagonism between the two forces of “tradition” and “modernity”. Tradition is always judged to be superior to modernity, which leads traditionalists to approve of extremely barbaric practices, such as the Hindu tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. It also leads to traditionalists speaking of a pan-traditional alliance against “modernity”. This latter tendency is evident in Heimbach's speech. Heimbach's also makes mention of an “organic hierarchy” that existed under the medieval system of monarchy and oppressive Church bureaucracy, another clear allusion to Guenonian/Evolian traditionalism. The anti-Christian and anti-Western teaching of Guenon and Evola has for some reason come to exert a strong influence on contemporary Western nationalism. The same nationalists who envision alliances with Muslims and Hindus seem unwilling to grant Evangelical Christianity and Classical Republicanism a place in the pan-traditional alliance against the enemy, because they view Evangelical Christianity and Classical Republicanism as manifestations of “modernity”, and therefore as the enemies of the “primordial tradition”.


There is a strange tendency amongst certain American nationalists and traditionalists to trash our own traditions. They justify this by saying that America was a proposition nation, and that true blood and soil nationalism in this country can only be achieved by abandoning Americanism and imitating European nationalists and monarchists. This justification displays an ignorance of how blood and soil nationalism works. Blood and soil nationalism is defined and limited by the actual historical and cultural experience of a nation. Even if you do not like the Constitution, Americans have developed a traditionalist reverence for the document because it has been part of their national mythology for over 200 years. Even if you do not like low-church Evangelical Christianity, this type of Christianity has been the quintessentially American faith for over 400 years. Traditionalist reverence for a faith or a governmental structure cannot be conjured up spontaneously. It must be grown over generations. This is implied in the very term “traditional”.

Recent Posts>