Tribe vs. Tradition

Chess Players, by Jean-Louis Ernest Meissonier

Chess Players, by Jean-Louis Ernest MeissonierThe TradYouth project is absurdly ambitious, an attempt to build a coalition of every religious tradition and identity group into a united front against secular humanism and multicultural globalism. A popular misconception is that the project is a specifically pro-White and Orthodox Christian project. This is understandable, given the prominence of our White Advocates and Orthodox Christians. It’s not the case, though. We proudly support and are supported by Protestant kinists, Islamic Traditionalists, some folk religionists, and several non-White members who are every bit as proud of their ancestries and identities as we are of ours.

It’s unsurprising that Garveyite Black Nationalists haven’t flocked to our project, though they would certainly be welcome. There’s a massive amount of distrust and historical animosity between the various identity groups, and perhaps even more historical grievance between the different religious traditions. But given the hegemonic threat of Modernity, we identitarians and traditionalists must learn how to hang together, or assuredly, we will all hang separately.

More broadly, there’s some understandable confusion from both identitarians and traditionalists about the conflation of these two seemingly unrelated phenomena. Many Radical Traditionalists who would otherwise be attracted to our project are put off by our “racial” work. This seems to them like an uncomfortable and unwelcome distraction from promoting Traditionalist principles and virtues on college campuses. Conversely, many of my pro-White colleagues see all our “spiritual warfare” as an uncomfortable and unwelcome distraction from advocacy for our people.

Tribalism is Traditional.

Racialism isn’t necessarily Traditional. Nationalism isn’t necessarily Traditional. Racial supremacy is certainly not Traditional. But the preservation of Tradition categorically entails loyalty to one’s forefathers and a sublimation of one’s will to the interests of future generations. Without this, the Golden Thread of ancient wisdom can’t be sustained against the undertow of decadence.

Even people who appear to be completely without a traditional ethnic identity to cling to need to get busy constructing an identity for themselves as the necessary inter-generational dimension of the struggle against the Modern World. This can take on a variety of forms. A traditional community which begins as broadly multi-racial will, within a few generations, take on a certain “racial” character owing to the ancestries and inclinations of its founding stock. The Mexican identity is such a composite, with distinct European, Amerindian, and African populations merging together into a new identity which is racially distinct, rather than being “post-racial”, as the opponents of identity would imagine and prefer.

Lands like the Middle East, India, and North Africa have experienced racial admixture for thousands and thousands of years, and yet a colorful patchwork of distinct identities remains there, falsifying the Modern delusion to interracial pairings will “solve” humanity’s racial “problem”.

Contrary to the rhetoric of the regime’s never-ending Orwellian “War on Racism”, humanity’s racial diversity and the preservation of that diversity is a blessing and a strength. It’s good that we’re not all “equal” at everything, and that the hundreds of ethnic nations of the world have real and meaningful differences that make them unique.

Many contemporary Radical Traditionalist intellectuals, especially the White American ones, ignore the fundamentally tribal nature of traditional human communities in favor of a cosmic approach. And, yet, repeatedly, we find that the traditions which survive to the present have only managed to do so in the most tribalist of communities and nations. Identities are the jars that holds traditions.

Traditionalism is Tribal.

While I’m still happy to collaborate with non-traditional individuals and organizations who are performing constructive White Advocacy work, I’ve concluded that no meaningful progress can be made outside the framework of Tradition. Given the breadth and depth of our challenge, our only hope for success is with men and women who possess a transcendent worldview, who are willing to sacrifice their reputations, fortunes, and even lives in a way that secular materialists rarely are.

Drawing attention to double-standards, taking the Jew-dominated press to task for its distortions, and other forms of straightforward secular White Advocacy are necessary and valuable. But to actually succeed, to truly preserve ourselves, we must come together and form a new community, or communities, with shared visions and values. We must coalesce into a tribe of men and women willing to take risks and make sacrifices for one another.

I’m not an adherent of or supporter of Christian Identity theology, but what I have learned from my experience in the movement is that their deeply religious and insular communities have a fecundity and vitality vastly outstripping those more qualified and well-dressed men and women who eschew all that “spiritual mumbo-jumbo”. Their specific theology is somewhat irrelevant, as any theology which at its root looks above self to the transcendent is capable of overcoming Modern man.

TradYouth is Tribal and Traditional.

If you’re too racial to work with non-whites as equal partners in the fight for identitarian and traditional principles, then this project isn’t for you. If you’re too cosmopolitan to tolerate men like myself who are openly and unabashedly White Advocates, then this project isn’t for you. This project certainly isn’t for everybody. I believe it holds tremendous promise as a powerful education and mobilization platform against the united force of Modernity which despises and opposes both our tribal identities and our traditional affinities.


Henry Davenport

I like Alex Lindner’s remark in a recent podcast:

“Being White is about questing. It has nothing to do with traditions.”

When you smart fellows here finally finish your own brand of questing, I hope you will have found your way home.

Orthodox Mike

Being ‘white’ is useless without understanding tradition.


Yockey, seeing that murrica was the main threat to European civilization, worked for both the Soviets and the Egyptians in the 1950s.

Bulan Sabiel

Excellent. If only you could accept the reality that there is no “Jew-dominated press” because the “Jews” like the many more Christians in the press are at best nominal, and are generally full apostates, and they lie to attack Israel all the time.


Excellent clarifying statement. The purpose of anti-ethnic, anti-racial universalism is to manage ever larger economic and political units. You’re saying, we don’t plan to let ourselves be managed out of existence.

You make TYN sound like an intellectual movement, though. Yes, intellectually, peoples are in agreement with each other about preserving their own identities. But that doesn’t mean they’re not competing for power and territory.


That’s exactly what the problem is, or what the biggest one is, and it seems to amplify Matt’s already considerable intellectual depth, but to where is the question I ask.

Fr. John+

Mr. Davenport:

False tradition, is not tradition at all. Look at Christ rebuking the Pharisees in the Gospels, for instance.

Orthodox Mike

Mr Davenport, what exactly does ‘being white’ mean without Tradition? Doritos, Big Macs, and methamphetamine? Apple pie and Chevrolet? Traditionalism is our entirety… From the dawn of time til now. Our biology is merely a part of a whole.

Fr. John+

I would ask that you comment on the following post, and then explain your stance in light of this idea:

If Whites are being genocided, how can we work WITH those who wish our genocide?
This is not a joke. I am serious. You youngsters are wrestling with very large issues, and the status quo is very unwilling to give you any legitimacy. But because you have not yet enlightened yourselves to the complete depravity of the liberal mind, are iterating statements that are ‘halfway house’ propositions.

Thus, I ask you honestly. How can you work with those who desire your demise.
Or, as Scripture says, ‘What fellowship hath Christ with Belial’?


Matt, I just want to post something I read on Greg Johnson’s website:

I have avoided this faggot out of apprehension that arises from having pretty vast experience dealing with gay men who attempt to politically organize, and it turns out my concerns were well-founded. He lauds Hitler in a recent article but fails, or refuses for a better term, to recognize that Hitler did not want a faggot-oriented milieu to arise that would repel women. While physical fighting is obviously more men’s domain for various reasons, (fraternization probably being as important in this day and age as men’s advantage in physical combat), envisioning and building a holistic new nation requires the inspiration and perspective of both men and women. Besides all the other stuff I could add onto that, Hitler lost and we’re not solely german…

So I’m just stating that Greg Johnson’s attempt to banish women from policy-making and political activism should be seen as what it is – faggotry and nothing more. I suspect I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, but in case there remains any doubt in your or anyone else’s mind, I’ll repeat my mantra: FAGGOT.


He doesn’t banish women from policy-making and activism. He says that scarcity of women in organizations isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and that all-male, mixed, and all-female organizations may arise. He says women will get more interested when they see some victories and see men who will protect and provide. He advocates for the return to traditional gender roles on a voluntary basis. Utopian perhaps but not pro-homosexual.

Orthodox Mike

He is a homosexual, therefore cannot speak for me, personally.


As a self-proclaimed liberal humanist (if liberal humanism were purged of Christian influences), he seems to be at the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum from this website, though if he agrees on fighting the anti-whites, maybe he is an ally. Philosophy isn’t fighting. On the other hand, with such a different view of humanity, society, this society, and the goals of political action, it would be a pretty big tent to hold traditionalists and “Nietzschean” liberals.


I was just reading an article by Mr. Johnson on Hitler’s political expertise. Interesting reading, but these lyrics came to mind: “But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao… You ain’t gonna make it with anyone, anyhow…”

Henry Davenport

I’m a human of European descent.
Humans of European descent are under genocidal attack.
I’m unable to escape exposure to the enraging examples of this attack.
Even if there were a place where I could escape from such exposure, I’d still know it was being done.
I can do nothing, and stew in resentment and depression.
Or I can choose the satisfaction of fighting back.

Persons accustomed to living in their heads and seeking their identities in their heads find the above motivation woefully inadequate.

Orthodox Mike

The best way to fight back is first to kill one’s ego, find a relationship to God, raise a lot of kids, and strive to form a self sufficient community, preferably agrarian. Russia is pushing these things and it seems to be working, as it has the entire Liberal West butt-hurt.

Orthodox Mike

I don’t see how. The greatest leaders in history were confident, yet humble.


More brilliance from Spengler:

Dostoyevski is a saint, Tolstoy only a revolutionary. From Tolstoy, the true successor of Peter, and from him only, proceeds Bolshevism, which is not the contrary, but the final issue of Petrinism, the last dishonoring of the metaphysical by the social… If the building of Petersburg was the first act of the Antichrist, the self-destruction of the society formed of that Petersburg is the second, and so the peasant soul must feel it. For the Bolshevists are not the nation, or even a part of it, but the lowest stratum of this Petrine society, alien and western like the other strata, yet not recognized by these and consequently filled with the hate of the downtrodden. It is all megalopolitan and “Civilized” — the social politics, the Intelligentsia, the literature that first in the romantic and then in the economic jargon champions freedom and reforms, before an audience that itself belongs to the society. The real Russian is a disciple of Dostoyevski. Although he may not have read Dostoyevski or anyone else, nay, perhaps because he cannot read, he is himself Dostoyevski in substance; and if the Bolshevists, who see in Christ a mere social revolutionist like themselves, were not intellectually so narrowed, it would be in Dostoyevsky that they would recognize their prime enemy. What gave this revolution its momentum was not the intelligentsia’s hatred. It was the people itself, which, without hatred, urged only by the need of throwing off a disease, destroyed the old Westernism in one effort of upheaval, and will send the new after it in another. For what this townless people yearns for is its own life-form, its own religion, its own history. Tolstoy’s Christianity was a misunderstanding. He spoke of Christ and he meant Marx. But to Dostoyevski’s Christianity the next thousand years will belong.

(Decline of the West, v. 2, chap. VII, sec. ii)


Tradition — if you mean “things done before” — doesn’t necessarily mean good. Just because something was done, doesn’t mean it should be done again.

If you want to figure out a culture for a new tribe, think of what is best, not what was simply done before.

After all, what was done before is what lead us here.

Leave a Reply