The Rhetoric of the Opposition

bridge paintAs this is my first post for the Trad Youth blog, I’d like to say a few things about my connection to the TYN. I am a student at Indiana University where we have an active group of students who align with traditionalist values. I have been a member for a few months now and wanted to address the opposition to our group on campus.

The people that oppose us come in many kinds and many of them claim to be anti-hate, anti-intolerance, and anti-fascist. First off, I can say with confidence that the TYN is not a group that promotes hate or intolerance. By many people’s definitions, traditionalism is not a fascist philosophy either, but I will get to that in my next post. These opposers profess diversity, love and freedom. Now, you may read these things and be thinking to yourself, “Hey, these sound like pretty good things. What harm could they be doing?” Well, love, freedom and diversity ARE great things. The only problem is that the groups that oppose Trad Youth have picked the wrong enemy.

During the past several weeks, we have embarked on a chalking campaign on campus to raise awareness for our group. This was a source of quite a bit of hostility. Someone even started a petition on demanding that we be removed from the list of official student groups at IU. The petition boasts a whopping two signatures and promotes acceptance of all races, sexual orientations and photo editing abilities. Students Against Intolerance popped up on Facebook this month and had a similar goal of banishing Trad Youth from the IU campus, but has moved to the broader battle of fighting intolerance. While this is where the greatest followings of people can be seen, they offer little in terms of action or dialogue.

The ones who resist TYN the most verbally are the mobs that flock during activism such as painting the bridges on Jordan Ave. For those who don’t know, the two concrete bridges are the only place students are permitted to spray paint on campus. I have never been involved in one of these confrontations, but I have followed these events with some interest and have found that the language that they throw around is humorous, yet also touches some really important subjects.

While confronting us on campus, Anti-Trads called us racists and “crypto-fascists”. They said we were committing things called “microaggressions”. These words may have seemingly obvious meanings, but others are more cryptic (no pun intended) to the common ear.


where are you fromThis is a weird topic and is a term that has become a heated topic in recent years. The term “microaggression” is used to describe a particular kind of seemingly harmless racism (or sexism or any type of discrimination for that matter). I can tell from personal experience that they do exist; if I had a penny for every time I’ve been asked, “Where are you really from?” I’d have enough money for a plane ticket to Korea (the desired answer), a country I’ve never set foot in. It sounds like a small issue, and the individual faux pas generally is. Just go to to see how feeble these remarks tend to be. However, the real issue that people (of no race in particular) face is the shear volume of these aggressions that one might experience in their lifetime.

This article is not for me to complain about these microaggressions. Just do a quick Google search to find multiple websites where people complain about the “injustices” done to them. What I’d like to address is the relationship of Trad Youth to the microaggression. We do discuss the ideas of race in this group. There may even be a sentiment for racial separation, which may be the only way to effectually end the phenomenon of the racial microaggression. So if the TYN is not committing these aggressions, then you may be wondering why someone would accuse them of such. To answer this question, we must analyze another term.


Okay, racism has been a hot topic for the better part of the last century. The idea of race has probably been around longer than civilization itself. In America, a nation built on equality and freedom, we have tackled the concept of race in a way that no other country has. Americans have this unique experience with race because there is so much diversity in this country. Projections show that during the next three decades, America will become a plurality nation. With this greater racial “consciousness” comes a deeper sensitivity to racism and racial disparity.

So what is a racist? According to Merriam-Webster, racism is a “belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” It follows that a racist is someone that subscribes to these beliefs. Since TYN is not a supremacist organization, we cannot be racist according to this definition. This definition may not be sufficient though. Racism is not always the belief that a particular race is superior. Racism can be an acknowledgement of racial difference. Sometimes acknowledgement isn’t even necessary. Someone once told me that anyone who engages in the “system” is a racist. As I interpreted it, they were referring to the general benefits/disadvantages that certain groups of people experience in the workplace or other everyday settings.

The problem that one must confront is that everyone is a racist. Whether consciously or subconsciously, everyone that experiences race experiences racism. And because racism is such a bad thing (I say this with all sincerity, as anyone that has taken high school history would), it is only natural for the public to need a scapegoat. What is happening when people call TYN racist, is they are using to blame so that they don’t have to look at their own racist tendencies. This brings me back to microaggressions. What do people do when they try and point out a racist, but that “racist” is amicable and probably not guilty of anything worse than anyone else? You use a term that means “racism that doesn’t really hurt that bad”: microaggressor.

Are Anti-Trads using this term correctly? Probably not. Will they continue to use words they don’t understand? Maybe so. What you’ll find is that when you get people riled up enough, they’ll begin to sling words that don’t really mean anything. Stay tuned for my post about the use of “crypto-fascist” as the hip new insult.



Thanks for your post. I would say that traditionalism in our country includes the understanding that it was founded as a primarily WASP country, with significant Scottish, African, and Catholic populations and other smaller minorities, including Jews. The traditionalist desires that the people and culture of the historic American nation survive, develop, and flourish, acknowledging that other Europeans have assimilated to the WASP people and culture and have helped develop the country. The traditionalist appreciates the immigration of small numbers of non-Europeans who sincerely wish to assimilate to our WASP country, but is skeptical of the depth of commitment, and the ability, of larger numbers to do so. The traditionalist considers it impossible that communities of aliens can assimilate or can even, as a group, commit themselves to doing so.

The traditionalist thus views the 1965 Immigration Act as a catastrophe in the life of this WASP country on a par with the Civil War. The people’s representatives voted to disband the historic WASP identity of the nation, as enriched by a century of European immigration, in favor of a non-racial, non-Christian, non-national, universalist identity. To the traditionalist, such idealism was the utmost in suicidal folly and is serving only to destroy the dominant culture, leaving in its place the war of all against all masquerading as the liberal vision of justice, equality, and opportunity. Not least among the casualties was self-government, a prized feature of WASP culture, destroyed both by depriving historic American communities of the ability to determine their own composition and by the dilution of the tradition through the import of alien cultures. In a society where the federal government becomes the only tie that binds communities together, federal power (but not ability) approaches infinity.

The traditionalist also tends to recall earlier periods with more unbuilt ground and smaller populations as preferable. Older people remember earlier periods. This traditionalist remembers that in 1970, when the population of the country was approximately 200 million, it did not seem so crowded and much less farmland had been destroyed by new construction. At that time the traditional American population approached a replacement level rate of reproduction. Environmentalists warned against further growth. Now we are at 300 million-plus and counting, a population increase fueled primarily by immigration — the environmentalists have sacrificed the creed of preservation to the right to participate in the “progressive” coalition that wants to further stomp down the WASP-plus population and seize a permanent “democratic” majority. The traditionalist would freeze immigration, given the chance.

These words are from Sen. McCarran at the time of debate regarding the 1952 Immigration Act, which Truman vetoed, but whose veto Congress overrode (from Wiki):

“I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors…. However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States…. I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.”

What more prophetic words were ever spoken? In this quotation, he is our Enoch Powell.

The 1952 legislation was amended “beyond recognition” in the 1965 Act. All the ills Sen. McCarran foretold have come to pass to a degree he could scarcely have imagined. The traditionalist seeks to reverse that tide of destruction, the effects of which are visible, daily, in every single aspect of our lives — in every utterance of citizens and opinion makers, and in every institution.

Mike Sturgeon

Well said. Immigration can be a terrible enemy to not only Traditionalism, but America as a whole. Of course, this adage should be taken with a grain of salt. America is a country built by immigrants: Anywhere this far from the fertile crescent would be made up entirely of those who descended from foreigners.

The important thing to remember here is that immigration MUST be controlled. If we let the masses in, we risk the dilution of a great nation. We must only let in those that are willing to not only assimilate, but also contribute to this extraordinary culture.

Walt Bialkowski

God bless all of you in Traditional Youth – especially as you deal with the ‘microaggressions’ of the anti-white, anti-Christian, intolerant elements at your school. Don’t give up guys and girls ~~ God is with you ~! 🙂

Mike Sturgeon

It’s good to know we have people rooting for the right team, Walt. God bless you too.

Leslie H. Higgins

Nice monogram, reminiscent of J. R. R. Tolkien.

“Microagressions” are sometimes necessary to allow one to say something that cannot be said directly under political correctness.

Mike Sturgeon


As far as microaggressions go, I find it hard to see when they would be useful. Most of the time they are used out of ignorance, not to make a particular statement. If someone wants to say something that is politically incorrect, they may as well go ahead and say it directly. Of course I may be missing a certain situation where it is beneficial to commit a microaggression, so correct me if I’m wrong.

As far as I am concerned, the term microaggresion is a term invented by liberal globalists to weaken the will power of individuals within their respective races. If one can liken the mildest of comments to a racist aggression, he or she will continue to play the victim in such situations, weakening their power as an individual. This weakens the very core, the identity, of the race to which he or she belongs.

Leave a Reply