Hail to the King!

A blogger and author going by the name Clement Pulaski, wasn’t too fond of Matthew Heimbach’s infamous “Death to America” speech at last year’s Stormfront conference.  After considering his material, it seems there are three main points of contention: TradYouth’s fraternizing with non-Christians, Heimbach’s interpretation of American history, and Heimbach’s advocacy of monarchy.

As a Reformed Christian (I’m a Calvinist who believes in ethnic nationalism and monarchy), I was naturally interested in hearing what Pulaski had to say.  I even found many of my feelings and concerns expressed in his article.  Nevertheless, I think he’s overplayed his criticisms so a brief response is warranted:

The first two aren’t biggies, in my opinion.  Fraternizing with pagans?  Really?  Because Heimbach cites Evola from time to time?  Because some non-Christians write posts on TradYouth occasionally?  Because we hold picket signs next to pagans?  There’s been a long running debate within moral realist circles about how to apply universal norms to particular situations[1]. This debate spills into Christian ethics as well, with certain “totalitarians” advocating for a proof text to govern our every move, while certain “libertines” abuse God’s grace by doing whatever is right in their own eyes.

However a Christian solves this conundrum, it must be admitted that it’s a difficult question and that individual Christian dignity ought to be honored with respect to intimate decisions – like, for instance, how closely one decides to work with non-Christians as part of a political strategy.  Until Pulaski is able to produce an internationally acclaimed church council, detailing the exact limits and bounds of such political posturing, then he ought to respect the consciences of those involved.  Without such a council or consensus from Christendom, his arguments amount to little more than complaints that TradYouth doesn’t meet his personal tastes.  Big deal.  He’s not even a member of TradYouth, so why should we cater to his tastes?

And what of Heimbach’s view of America’s founding?  It’s disingenuous for Pulaski to spend a lot of time refuting talking points in a speech.  It’s unnerving to give public talks in the first place, but even more so when you’re speaking at the Stormfront conference.  Fudging historical particulars to make a succinct point, then, may require clarification later, and Pulaski might argue that some of Heimbach’s talking points need work, but it’s not an unusual practice, nor unwarranted given the audience and situation.  And the American founding is a ridiculously complex topic, one that even Pulaski’s article wasn’t long enough to do justice.  Heimbach’s a history major and, I’m sure, were it required of him, he could give a thorough defense of his interpretation of America’s history – just maybe not in a few comments during a speech intended for other purposes.

That leaves us with the biggie: Pulaski’s rejection of monarchy.  Here we have a genuine ideological disagreement; in response, I’ll provide a few words in favor and invite the curious to ask questions in the comment section.

How can a Calvinist support monarchy?  Isn’t that counter-historical?  Isn’t that contrary to the spirit of God’s law (see 1 Samuel 8, for example)?

Skipping to the heart of the matter, a few points must be made:

1.  Throughout the history of political philosophy, positions, names, and labels have proven to be notoriously ambiguous.  “Monarchy” is no different.  In the end, and despite minute differences in terminology and practice, it may be that a Christian confederacy of tribal monarchs, governed by a loose allegiance to God’s law, may resemble what others think of as a republic.   At any rate, both terms are ambiguous, even in their historical manifestations.

2.  The most important premise in a Christian defense of monarchy is that Scripture supports private property ownership.  Any attack on monarchy is ultimately an attack on private property, as the following illustration will show:

Imagine, if you will, that you and your family move to Texas and purchase a 600 acre homestead.  But 600 acres is a lot to manage.  One day, a gang of Mexicans lazily stroll onto your property and ask for work.  You need their help, so you agree about wages and they set out to do their thing.  Part of the agreement is that they can have the large shed on the back 40 to live in while they work.

In this illustration, we have the foundation of monarchy.  Your children and the children of the Mexicans, while equal in dignity, have different rights and privileges on the farm.  Perhaps the Mexican’s children are not allowed in the main yard or allowed in the ranch house?  Now, suppose, one day, the Mexicans decide the political situation is unjust and that the 600 acre farm ought to belong to everyone?  The only way they can overturn the current situation is by effectively robbing you and your family of your original property and redistributing it among themselves.

…hence, on this view, those who executed Charles I were little more than thieves and street thugs [2].

3.  Many defenses of monarchy are offered by those who either aren’t interested in Christianity, or who offer arguments that don’t directly rest on Christian theology.  These arguments, like some from Fr. Raphael Johnson as well as those from Hans Hoppe, focus on the utility of monarchy, claiming it’s better than other systems for practical reasons [3].  While I wont focus more on them here, they’re important and ought to be dealt with in any debate about monarchy.

Much more can be said, especially about how a Christian monarchy fits into a tribalist and theonomic context, but there’s no denying that monarchy is ethical and maybe even the normative state for man.  It’s just as normative as patriarchy, family, and private property ownership.

I wish more Calvinists throughout the history of the West had realized it and I hope Pulaski gives it a second thought.



1.  For an interesting view of this debate in contemporary philosophy, see Marianne Talbot’s series of lectures: “A Romp Through Ethics.”

2.  See Hilaire Belloc’s book on Charles I, for a monarch-friendly analysis of the English Civil War.

3.  See The Orthodox Nationalist’s episode in defense of monarchy.  Fr. Raph Johnson has an interesting and uniquely Orthodox defense of monarchy.  I became a monarchist, in part, thanks to the influence of his excellent podcast.  His material is a great place for budding Christian monarchists to begin and he does a wonderful job of putting arguments, like the ones Hoppe offers, into a Christian context.  A typical sort of pragmatic argument, found at 33 min. into Hoppe’s lecture “From Monarchy to Democracy”, is that it’s more difficult for Kings to inflate the currency than it is for anonymous banking oligarchs.


Swiss Kinist

“Until Pulaski is able to produce an internationally acclaimed church council, detailing the exact limits and bounds of such political posturing”

Since when did church councils become the arbitrators of what is truth from scripture and what is not? That sounds like a pretty loose way to live. Do YOU even believe in that kind of determination of standards? I know that so-called Orthodox do, but doubt you believe this.

Going back to our shared illustration of “modest clothing for women”, if there is no international church council giving exact detailed limits of what modesty is, then I should respect the conscience of a brother whose wife dresses provocatively, and not object that she is causing men to stumble? I cannot protest based on scripture, and argue and speak that such women are sinning because a church council didn’t say so?

Be consistent if you are going to hold to that, brother. I don’t know a single Kinist who gives this kind of “freedom of conscience” to alienists, who are clearly sinning in their position of being anti-white. Almost all Kinists mock, condemn, speak against, etc. these alienists, as the alienists being wicked sinners. There certainly is no church council speaking against their actions and beliefs. And no Kinist would argue that kind of position; they would argue from scripture and historical example (and they are right to do so).

Such is the case that Pulaski, I believe, would hold to regarding fellowship with unbelievers. He is entitled to give a scripturally based argument and speak against what he believes the scripture shows as sin. It’s not a “preference” like you are making it out to be.

Your position of “freedom of conscience” basically asks for anyone who has a strong scriptural conviction about sin, to just shut up and “respect the other’s conscience”. I would hope no true Christian would respect something in another Christian’s life that he believes to be sin. That isn’t love. Love is rebuking your neighbor for sin (Leviticus 19:17) I’m not going to fight you or hold a gun to you to get you to hold my convictions, but I am not going to hold my peace or accept what I believe to be sin. I don’t think you would either; you just are not consistent in this category.. at least, that is what I hope.

With Love in Christ,



What do you make of the divide among moral realists? In the Christian community, the divide is represented by “totalitarians” on one side, who desire a proof-text for every action, and “libertines” on the other, who take advantage of God’s grace.

Eric Striker

How long will a Calvinist theocracy last? Looking at traditionally Calvinist countries like the Netherlands and Sweden, can you honestly vouch for the success of Calvinism in protecting the moral well-being of Europe? Do you share John Calvin’s stomach churning anti-white philo-Semitism? Do you believe that usury is moral, as the Calvinists historically have, which opened up the flood gates for modern Judeo-capitalism?

The question of monarchy itself should be revisited. If your goal is to transplant feudalism into the 21st century, you’re going to have to take into account the vast array of other developments that have made life different today than 600 years ago.

Looking back at 20th century monarchist revival movements, I think any objective observer would say the system has not aged well. People have come to expect some degree of direct democracy and autonomy alongside their collectivism. The scope of modern warfare has made the traditional military role of aristocrats (what in the past justified their leisure time) irrelevant, so what practical purpose do they serve?

If you want to impose a system over a 21st century white man, you better come up with other reasons than “because Jesus says so” or “because it’s my divine right”.


“Calvinism” is a theological school of thought; schools of thought can’t protect the moral well-being of any nation.

As for your questions – choose the one you’re most curious about, and I’ll answer it for you.

Eric Striker

Don’t you think there are certain schools of thought that put national moral/general well-being in greater practical risk than others? It’s hard to think religion didn’t play a role in hardline Calvinist Cromwell’s openness to dealing with Amsterdam Jews to murder Charles I. Ditto for the Glorious Revolution.


I’m no historian; I’ve read three books on the English Civil War (and listened to a few dozen lectures)…but I’m no historian.

What I do know (from my limited exposure to the topic) is the political situation was far more complicated than your post, with its vulgar generalizations, seems to recognize. Abbott, Belloc, and other friends on my shelf back me on that (and you ought to know better than to question the point anyway. Historical analysis and those who do it well, deserve our layman’s respect).

Additionally, I’ll warn you again about sloppy reification. People, Eric, not ideologies, build or destroy societies; guns don’t kill, spoons don’t create weight gains, and ideas are, at best, lame pretenses to carry out the heart’s desire of the ideologue.

Doubt me? I may not be a historian, but I have studied analytical philosophy for over a decade; rigorously so. No one is more sensitive to the fact that people, in general, care nothing at all for philosophy, than philosophers are. Spend time in the web forums and you’ll have anecdotes to rival mine on this point.

It’s white people like yourself who constantly fall for the alchemist’s ploy that lead can be transformed into gold with just a hint of social tinkering. Just a dash of ideological tweaks.



Yes, but I doubt you’ll be able to tell us what “bad” means without appeal to some arbitrary and / or morbidly inconsistent ethical standard.

At any-rate, this post was directed at a Christian critic and I don’t expect non-Christians (or even Christians of a non-Protestant persuasion) to get much out of it.

Fr. John+

Some observations. Just mine, no ‘church council’ declarations of ‘thus saith the Lord,’ or anything. (well, maybe a bit…)

Shotgun is very fair and balanced (though not working for Faux News thereby!) in this column, but NONE of the responders to his column treat his observations with anything approaching the same irenic spirit. Moreover, not one of them appears to be Orthodox. They all seem to have an axe to grind, that sounds much like ‘My calvinism’s better than your historically contiguous incarnate Theanthropic body, so there- mllllnnnh!’

Which is, to put it bluntly, quite childish. As a former Prot, this is one of their greatest failings, in showing forth the grace of God to fellow Christians, (whom they cannot even give one iota of legitimacy to- otherwise, it destroys their foundations for ex post facto Calvinist Xtianity). Protestants are so… well, PROTEST oriented!

“Sweden was a democracy” is about as idiotic as saying “Sweden was a calvinist country.” The State Church of Sweden is, and always has been Lutheran, and a Lutheranism that maintained in their land, the same form and manner of ordaining Bishops, Priests, and Deacons as England did with the Anglican Tradition.

Hoppe’s talk on Monarchy is now a small e-book, and his arguments (along with those of Raphael Johnson) when read, marked, and studied, are a needed corrective to the egalitarian claptrap we Americans have been spoon-fed for centuries. Britain now is working very hard to make the multiculti heresy her own, by claiming (unsuccessfully, thank God) that Pakis, Africans, Moslems of any stripe are ‘Britons.’ Nope, sorry. Never will be.

A country is defined both by its geography, as well as by its language, race, and religion. Romanity understood that, whereas Rome never really did. Eliminate any one of those elements, and you have started the slipppery slope toward genocide, or apostasy, or both. Today, the White Race, worldwide, is under attack by a myriad of fronts, for that very desired result- the obliteration of the Man of Christendom, as Cambria so often speaks of- https://cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/in-his-image/

It matters little if one does not ‘like’ monarchy; if by monarchy, the White Race, Christendom, and Romanity is saved. That is the final question, the errr, ‘final solution’ to our current problem, as it were. If following Codreneau in the private sphere, voting in Trump as Pres (or king?) or moving to Russia under Putin’s restoring of the Romanov’s, would give the Men of Christendom (European White Man, to be precise… and exclusionary- yes, I know EXACTLY what I am talking about!) ‘lebensraum’ or ‘breathing space’ in this concerted attack by the Deicides, the Sodomites, and the merely Liberal Loons, then, so be it!

This is something the Calvinists, with the Anfernee Bradleys, their ‘seeker sensitive’ garbage, and their ‘apologies for racism’ have completely missed- and for good reason. As Christ said, ‘He who is not with me, is against me.” [ Matt. 12:30] And the second half of that verse is also illuminating: “and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” As the Calvinist Gill noted of this second half of the verse, “…Satan is the wolf, that catches and scatters the sheep, and seeks to kill and destroy them: and since there is such an open war proclaimed and carried on between Christ and the devil, none ought to be neutral…”.

Neutrality- the desire to not have strong/correct opinions, on the things that ultimately matter- like Orthodoxy, is the mark of the modern cuckservative in matters politic. Oh, the modern apostate will argue till they’re blue in the face, but submit? Hardly. Just look at the RINOS and Trump, as a concrete example… But it clearly doesn’t stop there- for the modern, who says, ‘We will not have this man (Christ the KING) to rule over us,” is equally as guilty as the Jews of Jesus’ day… and strangely ideological bedfellows, as well.

Plus ca change….etc.

Ezra Pound's Ghost

I liked this a lot. I think if our author follows his reasoning through to its ultimate conclusions, he is well on his way to becoming orthodox, or Roman Catholic at the very minimum.


It seems to me that Charles Stuart was not an authentic representative of English popular and aristocratic feeling, with his aspirations to a continental style divine right. The Elizabethan settlement counseled moderation in the relationship between the estates, but Charles tried to take all power into royal hands. Thus he provoked the English Revolution, just as George III provoked the American Revolution, creating republicans where before there had been constitutional monarchists.

With that background, I don’t see how an American WASP can be a monarchist. Our current bloated administrative state, through which our bloated executive branch operates, is monarchical government. It scarcely has to take the people’s representatives or the LAW into account. The fact that party elites can fight for possession of the monarchy is hardly any different from factions within a monarchic establishment competing for supremacy.

A true WASP believes in self-government under God, and views his worldly governors as temporary delegates of his self-governing sovereignty under God. It is theoretically possible for an individual to represent true WASP ideals well enough to be acceptable as monarch-for-life, if he were to exercise his power to implement self-government on a vast scale, i.e., maximum devolution. I think republicanism is so rooted in American WASP being, though, that creating a dictatorship to restore our freedom is completely unlikely.
It seems to me that contemporaries are monarchists out of alienation from the grotesque travesty our republic has become, but if the thing has to be blown up, you’re not going to do it by calling the head of state a queen or king instead of Madam or Mr. President. No doubt I’m not looking far enough ahead to see your “confederacy of tribal monarchs” as realistic.

Much to learn from Belloc. His distributism would be a good support for our restored republic. Our republic was distributist for a couple of hundred years after England became capitalist in the 1600s.

Fr. John+

“With that background, I don’t see how an American WASP can be a monarchist. ”
HE can and does, if he is a White Anglo-Saxon Pravoslavniye- the REAL WASP.

I am so far an advocate of Monarchy, in my utter disgust of a Nigger winning office for two terms, I cannot TELL you. When I became Orthodox, it helped me tremendously, to learn that ALL of the West’s culture is Aberrant. that was the final straw that loosed the scales from my eyes. Trust me… monarchist and American? It can happen far easier than you think.


What I’m saying is, the reasons BHO is President are the same reasons he would be king if we had a monarchy, which he is, which we do, though term limited. He is the figurehead for the power structure as it actually exists.
If we are talking about a fantasy incarnation of the self-governing spirit of the historical white American that is a different thing — a St. Edwin, St. Oswald, Alfred the Great, or Andrew Jackson — but in modernity, your king at best will be a dictator at the head of a successful revolution that is nowhere in sight. No need to call him king.

Fr. John+

Actually, the reasons a half-caste negro was made President, are the EXACT Opposite reasons he could never be a king- especially when looked at in the TradYouthNetwork, ethnarch model that is posited by the Orthodox. No sitting sovereign of a nation today, is of a different ethos than the majority people, thus proving my point.


Interesting post. Constructive criticism’s good. I also with Pulaski have wondered about cooperation with non-Christians, but actually wondered about how Catholics vs. Orthodox vs. protestants could get along, more than that as I think I’ve posted here before. Haven’t researched it yet but wanted to post it again, resolving this issue.

Leave a Reply