Action Report: LGBTQ vs. TradYouth IU


IU: Oppressing Otherkin?We strolled into the public library conference room and took our seats before anybody else arrived (even our enemies grudgingly concede that we evil fascists are exceedingly punctual). Tom didn’t really know what we were walking in on, but the students slowly filing in were disproportionately female and/or gay, even by Bloomington’s standards. Two of the attendees were racial and sexual czars from the IU staff, but it was pretty much a student-directed community discussion.

As the discussion forum began, it became evident that it was organized by a young feminist and would primarily concern gender issues. A paper was passed around which outlined differing wage levels between men and women, with the implied premise that sexual discrimination was the sole reason and that this was an “inequality” to be ironed out.

Their data was solid, compiled by an affable Asian student with whom I compared statistical notes and observations after the event. But data is useless without competent and rigorous analysis. On this count, our opponents were suffering from an acute case of tunnel vision. It wasn’t for lack of intelligence or interest in the issue, but from a sheer lack of exposure to diverse perspectives. The diversity cult’s “rainbow family” of allies welcomes everybody regardless of their race, heritage, cultural background, gender, and sexual fetish, as long as they all drink the same ideological kool-aid.

The students had entered with the assumption that we’re reactionary conservative bigots and misogynists; they weren’t prepared for an authentically Traditionalist alternative to their perspectives on gender issues. While the LGBTQ radicals were discussing the need for wildly expensive, impractical, and silly “third gender” bathrooms throughout campus to help transsexuals and otherkin feel even more welcome on campus, one girl spoke up about the lack of resources on campus for students who are young mothers.

I couldn’t agree more.

Too frequently, Traditionalists allow themselves to fall into reactionary habits, forgetting that our vision necessarily includes providing far more resources, respect, and community support for women who embrace traditional lifestyles and decisions than are currently offered. As long as being “barefoot and pregnant” remains a humiliating sentence, even among so-called “traditionalists”, we shouldn’t be surprised that women object and resist. Until we successfully undermine the capitalist propaganda that putting on work boots is liberating and the secular humanist belief that having children is a burdensome distraction from self-actualization, we can expect a good share of women to remain on the opposite side of the barricades.

Within the first five minutes of the two hour exchange, we successfully challenged the implied premise that equality and equity are synonymous. Women earning less than men in the workplace could be and most likely is the product of their being empowered to select different work/life balances. I was all too eager to quibble with the class forever about employment and productivity statistics, but Tom cut me off. He accused both sides of the argument of trying to reform and improve upon this capitalist regime.

We don’t want to fix this social order, ironing out its imperfections. We want to replace it.

This was too much for one student, whose mind was blown by our being anti-corporate. “You guys call yourselves traditionalists, but capitalism is an American tradition!”

Fair question. TradYouth welcomes and holds a variety of economic positions, and I’m not really sold on Tom’s interest in Distributism or in the “social credit” ideas commonly promoted in our circles. Personally, I see the free market as a force of nature, like gravity or water. It can be and often is a force for good, but only when mastered by noble leaders.

The conservative American ideal of “capitalism”, the one brought to its absurd extreme conclusion by Ayn Rand and her ilk, posits that the pursuit of profit is inherently moral. Regardless of what alternatives you propose, modern finance capitalism is diametrically opposed to and incompatible with the survival of every tribe and tradition.

Unfortunately, very few people understand the difference between traditionalism and Traditionalism. “Little t” traditionalism is about the past, about doing things the way they’ve traditionally been done. “Big T” Traditionalism is a philosophical school which posits that there are certain archetypal beliefs and behaviors which are perennially superior. While the American traditionalist is committed to rolling back the clock to his or her preferred “Golden Age”, the Radical Traditionalist is inclined to critique even our oldest and most cherished traditions.

If unmitigated greed and unsustainable viral growth are American traditions, then America’s necessarily anti-Traditional at its root.

Later on in the discussion, after about the fifth or sixth time I heard a student casually refer to the LGBTQ agenda as the next phase of “Civil Rights”, I sort of snapped. There’s something viscerally contemptible about a gaggle of very wealthy, privileged, and educated White people hijacking and redirecting a movement which was originally meant for wretchedly poor people who had been owned as property and subjected to a systematic regime of humiliation and disempowerment. Rev. Mmoja Ajabu, a Black Nationalist colleague of mine, has complained about this before, and I can’t help but concur with him.

I disagree with how the Civil Rights movement has progressed, mind you. It should have been about autonomy, independence, and sovereignty. Instead, it was about forced integration, Affirmative Action quotas, and White elites teaming up with minority “community organizers” against the White working class.

Even then, given my relatively harsh accusation, the students remained respectful and contemplative. All things considered, Indiana’s faculty and students demonstrated an impressive commitment here to academic protocol in approaching dissident ideas. One faculty member even expressed regret about the persecution TradYouth members have experienced on campus.

In the big picture, it was to their benefit. While I believe we fared better in the discourse than they had hoped for, giving us an opportunity to clearly and completely state our position affords them an opportunity to learn how to counter and challenge our position. We can’t be defeated by insults, epithets, physical attacks, or “dynamic silence”. This is a battle of ideas, and the Radical Traditionalist critique of Modernity and Progressivism is one they’ll be seeing and hearing more and more frequently in the coming years. It was wise of the faculty to take this calculated risk.

A few minutes after my accusation, a young women who realized the rhetorical triangulation I had pulled called me out on it. “They’re exploiting our own language and rhetoric to stir up fights within our movement!”

Fair call, but it’s still a valid question. Can Black Americans trust White elites and their homosexual vanguard to have their true interests at heart? Are the visions promoted by Martin Luther King and Barack Obama about empowerment? Or are the visions promoted by Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X the truly empowering ones? Not being a Black American, I have no standing in that community’s dialogue, but if I were Black, I would be thinking long and hard about whether I want to have my pick of seats on the White Bus or whether I want to be the driver of my own Black Bus.

Aside from an awkward incident as things were wrapping up where a snotty hipster with the LGBTQ refused to shake Tom’s outstretched hand, everybody involved behaved maturely, even as very strong differences in opinion were expressed. We celebrated yet another successful public event with a pizza party, recapping and rigorously reviewing how our arguments and their presentation could be improved upon in the future.

For all of our anti-corporate propaganda, one of the things that sets TradYouth apart is how we run things with the seriousness and discipline of a business. The months and months of scheduling, prioritizing, and project management Tom and his local team have been putting into this may not always feel like fun. But when it pays off this clearly and tangibly, in the form of the campus’s students and faculty being compelled to directly confront and respond to TradYouth’s radical and unfamiliar message, it’s well worth the effort. Our street action may receive the lion’s share of the media attention and controversy, but the real news is that TradYouth is–one by one–reaching students with our message.


  • Brett Hillman

    this is all great news and was a great summary. fight on

  • civil rights apostate

    The “civil rights” movement, the radical feminist movement and the “gay” rights movement are one and the same. If there was ever an evil force, that’s what it was. I would rather sit in the back of the bus with a bunch of whites than in the front with some blacks. A boy who doesn’t want to share a restroom with the girls is not a girl-hater but a gentleman, and a girl who doesn’t want to share a restroom with the boys is simply being modest. The “civil rights” movement wants me to not only share a restroom with the girls but to be horrified when someone calls Jerome Sidney Barrett, who molested and murdered 9-year old Marcia Trimble for handing out girl scout cookies a “nigger”, and at the same time feel no sorrow over people like her who were killed in even more brutal ways. They also want me to feel guilty about the fact that I won’t even consider marrying a girl of a different race, even though I don’t enforce my preference for my own race in that area on anyone. (I don’t think we can tell from the Bible whether miscegenation is morally wrong.) All this CRM is just plain sick and hateful.

  • StaveEli

    Out of curiosity, what prompted your desire to only marry a woman of your own race?

    • civil rights apostate

      I don’t know. I guess I was always wired that way. I like the look of white children better than that of mixed race children, and I can only get white children with a white woman. White birthrates are a little too low these days, and if I marry a woman of a different race, I will be making my race endangered. I am an environmentalist, and have enviromentalist roots, and if we can save things like salamanders and sparrows, we can certainly seek to save the white race. And besides, I think white women are generally the most beautiful anyway, and the ones I would get along with the best if I was married to one. Up until the 60s, 99% of marriages were intraracial anyway.

  • Niemca

    Another grotesque oblique swipe at the white lower class. Not all LGBTQ… people are privileged white people; plenty are privileged blacks. The civil rights movement didn’t purport to liberate poor blacks, but all poor and middle class people. Which is why it was ultimately a scam. But it did sucker those middle and lower class whites to some degree, perhaps more the white middle class who thought they’d become rich with a simple college loan.

    Matt Parrott’s elitism – and racism towards whites – continues to reveal its ugly myopic self here at TradYouth.

    There’s a reason TYN has failed to truly galvanize white middle class young people. Matt Parrott is full of s***.

    Free Matt Heimbach!

    • Matt Parrott

      You misunderstood and pointedly disagreed with one article of mine, and now I’m a villain holding Heimbach hostage?

      The audience I spoke with, and the “organized gay community” definitely are, nearly to a man/woman/it privileged elites. There are sexual deviants who aren’t privileged, but they’re separate and distinct from this movement.

    • Matt Parrott

      And how am I an elitist for railing against White elites?

    • Niemca

      You are guilty of the worst liberal marxist anti-white sleights of rhetoric. You wrote:

      “Later on in the discussion, after about the fifth or sixth time I heard a student casually refer to the LGBTQ agenda as the next phase of “Civil Rights”, I sort of snapped. There’s something viscerally contemptible about a gaggle of very wealthy, privileged, and educated White people hijacking and redirecting a movement which was originally meant for wretchedly poor people who had been owned as property and subjected to a systematic regime of humiliation and disempowerment. Rev. Mmoja Ajabu, a Black Nationalist colleague of mine, has complained about this before, and I can’t help but concur with him.”

      Uh, I think you just called all these LGBT rights types ‘very wealthy, privileged, and educated *White* people.’ You also seem to think that the civil rights movement was ‘originally meant for wretchedly poor people who had been owned as property and subjected to a systematic regime of humiliation and disempowerment.’

      Your whole premise here is whacked, Matt.

      I have come to understand why these seemingly either paid off, or emotionally misguided and often deranged, middle class white males attack you and your ilk so viciously. It’s because you do hate them, at the end of the day – their whiteness and their non-‘privileged’-ness.

      You truly do. It’s been eye opening and illuminating to study your group and the broader context.

      You hate White people, Matt, and you don’t even know it. You ‘Parrot’ worn out tropes about the civil rights movement, and organized gays, and mostly, Whites in general.

      85-90% of Whites in the antebellum south lived materially indistinct lives from those of the african slaves. This unofficial slavery continued, for the most part, through till the Great Depression, and during that period, slavery for a huge portion of Whites in the North was practically official. Ever heard of the Molly Maguires? In the South Jim Crow served to divide labor and perpetuate the plutocratic schema. Most Whites enjoyed some sort of bourgeois freedom only in their imaginations. White women were often officially deemed property.

      The civil rights movement was hijacked by zionists/jews who tricked some of the lower and middle class whites into believing there would be a dynamic meritocracy; opportunity would be made equally available to all. These Whites’ interests were supposed to be included according to the PR gimmicks of the Great Society.

      Your perception that the civil rights movement was only about blacks, or that they were the sole inhabitants of slavery, official or otherwise, is the Jesse Jackson version. At the time, this vision of a capitalist utopia was not premised as one of Black v. White, but of Poor/Working Class v. Wealthy. Or it was sold to the Whites as such. In the minds of most black leaders and their jewish benefactors, and sure,of some white elites, it was all a big fake out. The jews had never had to compete with european masses; only during the industrial age were whites allowed to read. The push after this phase towards democratization of access to higher education was never truly meant to equalize opportunity, but, to control it. The jews needed to become the chief orchestrators of a race war which would in fact, as opposed to in image, punish and repress the europeans they feared. In all their years in Europe jews faced no competition from the white masses; during the Middle Ages 98% of jewish men could read, while only 3% of White men could as the Church forbade it. The jews saw industrialization as a threat to their monopoly on education and the power and privilege it can yield. They first harnessed this faux populism to enact what became further punishment of the white middle and lower classes in the form of AA, etc. Along the way they gave propagandists like Noel Ignatiev fake degrees from Harvard so he could start the second phase of their modern version of matzoh-making; Ignatiev literally took Allen’s authentic white populism and perverted it into the modern myth of ‘White Privilege,’ which was just a cover for the reality of Jewish Privilege. It’s not matzoh jews make with the blood of christian, white boys, but profits.

      Your comments are all wrong, about the political and economic status of most Whites throughout most of US history, about all LGBT advocates being privileged and *white*…it’s just crap. On the queer front there’s much greater complexity going on.

      Sucking up to Black Nationalists by validating their zionist projections onto Whites is a dead end. Thing is, I think you actually believe these projections, as they are as self-serving for elitist Whites as they are for the Black Caucus, Inc. It was, after all, the european aristocracy who invited the jews into Europe to become the bankers and tax collectors. They knew literacy would be contained and potential revolts thus repressed.

      You keep Liberty Lamp around, because at the end of the day you’re just like him.

    • Matt Parrott

      Niemca,

      You hate White people, Matt, and you don’t even know it.

      I despise the specific class/caste of White people, our indigenous mercantile elite, who through industrialization in the North and chattel slavery in the South leveraged their wealth against the White folk. I hate them for leveraging Blacks and other minorities against us…as slaves driving us out of the workforce, as indigent laborers driving down our wages, and as “civil rights” tokens driving us out of the institutions and social spaces our forefathers created for us.

      You’re damn right I hate those White people. Hard. And, yes, there is a Chomskyite anti-colonial edge to my worldview. Yes, I see a revolt by the White people of the Anglo-Western world against the White and Jewish elites as the penultimate stage in the global struggle against capitalist colonialism.

      Both Lamp and I are diametrically opposed to these decadent Whites, the difference being that my opposition is because they’re decadent and his is because they’re White. If you’re so pro-White that you refuse to identify and target the Whites who are driving the West and all of us in it over the cliff, then you’re just a wee bit too pro-White, I reckon.

    • Niemca

      You think you’re some White Liberator of these masses of poor Whites, whom you deride and even render invisible at every rhetorical turn. Address the quotes I repeated, please. The slaves in the south were only black? There were more whites lynched than blacks in the 20 year period before the Civil War. I can get the name of the black historian source for this, who Jim Webb directed me to.

      Only Whites are lobbying for LGBT extremism? Not last I checked. And believe it or not they’re not all ‘privileged’ per se, although that word ceases to have much concrete meaning given how overused it is. I’m making the point that many are simply middle class people who just have attitudes. You’d have to travel among the gays to truly understand this. The class privileged among them are hardly all white.

      What you are is whiteous, as opposed to authentically righteous about the rights of whites. You keep missing the point because in your myopic, middle-upper class white experience, the people I speak of don’t even exist as real human beings. How on earth you invert what I said to place yourself as a champion of the oppressed masses of whites is beyond me, but to any sober reader I can’t imagine your mental gymnastics are convincing.

    • Matt Parrott

      I didn’t say or imply that non-slaveholding Southern Whites weren’t victimized. I have described them as having been so in numerous articles over the years.

      As for the privileged White LGBTQ thing, I’m just going on my own experience with them. I honestly don’t know if I’m stumbled into one which wasn’t a well-to-do over-educated White gentile guy or girl.

    • Matthew Heimbach

      My articles are coming back. Started a new job and its been a bit crazy. I miss y’all!!

    • civil rights apostate

      I’m not anti-Semitic, but I think it’s interesting to note that Barney Frank Jared Polis, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and many other ultraliberals who are either homosexual or radically feminist are Jewish. Most lower middle class white gentiles like me are either against LGBT or neutral.

  • Gregor

    Bravo Matt!

    This is the first time I’ve seen trad. vs Trad. laid out this clearly. All that is missing is a list of those “perennial” attributes that underly Trad. While those here may already know them, a listing might be good for folks who have never even heard of the “trad. vs Trad.” thing.

    Keep up the great work, all of you!

    Gregor

  • Dustin

    Matt, you’ve made quite an effort to reach out to these guys, but you don’t seem to understand that they aren’t interested in rational discussion.

    They’re interested in sexual “acting out” and shoving it down other people’s throats. That’s why they’re talking about “third gender bathrooms”, etc.

    As Western society becomes more and more hedonistic and sexualized (and polluted with heavy metal contaminants), this sort of behavior is only going to increase.

    I think your efforts to reach out to them are well-intended, but good intentions unfortunately are not enough. In other words, I think our time and efforts are better spent elsewhere.

    • Matt Parrott

      I think your efforts to reach out to them are well-intended, but good intentions unfortunately are not enough. In other words, I think our time and efforts are better spent elsewhere.

      We’re going to continue erring on the side of engagement, accepting the risks that come with doing so. We engage the the Far Left, we engage with the Far Right, we engage with local folks, we engage with foreigners. Aggressive engagement across the social and political spectrum is pretty much baked into the foundation of the project.

  • kennewick-man

    Matt,I think it’s admirable that you are trying to reach these people. Jesus talked to the Pharisees, and Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea followed him. Not big numbers, but significant. I don’t believe young people can be satisfied by hedonism. They think they are rebels, when in fact they are the system. It sounds like you at least planted some seeds.

  • Jimmy Marr

    Good work.

  • KO

    Mr. Parrott, are you a Marxist? Is the struggle against global colonial capitalism the supreme narrative of our era? I think it would be more traditionalist to see history in terms of waiting for/realizing God’s kingdom. Under that umbrella, you could certainly identify evil capitalists (an politicians and union leaders) who betray their people and cooperate on a huge scale in doing so, on one hand, and those who seek to live in accordance with Christian ideals and natural law, i.e., taking care of their people as best they can, on the other. You don’t want to emphasize class and class consciousness at the expense of the other variables that make up human life. I sometimes think you sound Marxist in your discussion of political technology. It would be a big waste of effort if your “traditionalism” were just race-conscious Marxism, without transcending Marxist materialism. Also, if your God were just Hitler’s and Nietzsche’s Dionysus–that painfully truncated parody of our Western tradition’s Lord of Hosts, Holy One, Redeemer, Creator, and Comforter.

    • Matt Parrott

      Mr. Parrott, are you a Marxist?

      Most definitely not.

      Is the struggle against global colonial capitalism the supreme narrative of our era? I think it would be more traditionalist to see history in terms of waiting for/realizing God’s kingdom.

      The global capitalists and Organized Jewry are God’s foremost enemies in this era.

      You don’t want to emphasize class and class consciousness at the expense of the other variables that make up human life.

      My answer to the class issues we face has always been and will remain a rejection of class interests altogether in defense of a tribal political order, with the tribes in a global Christian communion.

      It would be a big waste of effort if your “traditionalism” were just race-conscious Marxism, without transcending Marxist materialism. Also, if your God were just Hitler’s and Nietzsche’s Dionysus–that painfully truncated parody of our Western tradition’s Lord of Hosts, Holy One, Redeemer, Creator, and Comforter.

      I’m not a crypto-Marxist. While my description of the current problems certainly does engage class issues (though not inordinately, in my opinion), my answers to the problems are diametrically incompatible with any variation on Marxism I’ve ever come across.

  • KO

    Mr. Parrott,
    Thanks for your reply. I respect your ability to field questions without getting testy, unlike famous talk show hosts and other journalists. I would only add that rationalism and liberalism are so deeply ingrained in our culture that they can exercise an unwanted influence even on their critics, so a certain amount of humility is in order for all of us. Neopopulism as Counterculture is a good guide on that. The authors say we have to become post-modern, put reason in its place, and rely on the common sense, common language, and religious traditions of the people. Your political activity potentially has that pragmatic post-modern quality that is not bound by ideology.

    I have a duty to dissent from your identification of “organized Jewry” as a major enemy of the era. There are Jewish liberals, indistinguishable from non-Jewish liberals; Jewish exploiters and manipulators, indistinguishable from non-Jewish exploiters and manipulators; and Jewish loyalists to Israel, a distinctive group, far more significant than Irish loyalists to Ireland, but possibly less significant than Mexican loyalists to Mexico. Each of these groups is worthy of distrust, for different reasons. For each, Jewishness offers temptations to victimology and alienation. However, the ills of liberalism and political and financial manipulation are from from unique to Jews or even uniquely Jewish. So I don’t think it is right to make Jewry such a big target (or scapegoat), especially if it deflects you from identifying the real problems and loses allies and well-wishers. Your Traditionalist movement should be American, and anti-semitic scapegoating is only marginal as an American tradition. Jews should be accepted or shunned individually, on the basis of real issues, not fantasies.

    Just think of the Nazis that persecuted WWI heroes of trench warfare, patriots of the Empire, just because they were Jewish. All based on fantasy. That is not the American way.

    • Lew

      KOs comments are a twisted mash of dishonest jewish talking points that have rebutted 1000s of times. If you have the slightest doubt that Jews are overrepresented in every activity detrimental to white civilization just as their co-tribalists were overrepresented among the original Bolsheviks, start here.

    • Matt Parrott

      KO,

      There are Jewish liberals, indistinguishable from non-Jewish liberals; Jewish exploiters and manipulators, indistinguishable from non-Jewish exploiters and manipulators; and Jewish loyalists to Israel, a distinctive group, far more significant than Irish loyalists to Ireland, but possibly less significant than Mexican loyalists to Mexico. Each of these groups is worthy of distrust, for different reasons.

      I respect and agree that there’s more nuance to the Jewish Question than either Jews or their critics typically imagine. Personally, I prefer to lump them into three taxa: International Jews, Imperial Jews, and National Jews.

      International Jews: These are the quasi-assimilated Leftist and globalist variety at the helm of the Democratic Party. They’re generally secularized and are at risk of drifting out of the Jewish community in the places like America and Western Europe which are “killing them with kindness” by failing to develop the antisemitic hostility which has traditionally played a critical hormetic role in sustaining Jewish ethnic solidarity.

      Imperial Jews: These are the less numerous but more organized and aggressive conservative neocon variety at the helm of the Republican Party. They’re generally more religious and they’re less interested in hippy-dippy neo-Marxist bullshit than they are in “securing the realm”. They’ve been on the ascent since the Nixon era, though they’ve been stalled and incapable of achieving their more ambitious goals since they overreached during Bush’s first term.

      National Jews: These are the only ones that it’s even possible for American White Nationalists to have any kind of non-hostile relationship with. They remain a minority faction who see manipulating American foreign policy to achieve their goals as problematic and unsustainable, and who are as disgusted by decadent liberal Jews as we are.

      However, the ills of liberalism and political and financial manipulation are from from unique to Jews or even uniquely Jewish.

      Agreed, sort of. According to my model, the overthrow of the traditional European order began as a collaborative project between Europe’s indigenous peasant merchants and the Jewish community. The Jewish community, being more cohesive and traditional, has always “wagged the dog” and has been at the vanguard of pushing decadence and anti-nationalism as a means to achieving their tribal goals.

      So I don’t think it is right to make Jewry such a big target (or scapegoat), especially if it deflects you from identifying the real problems and loses allies and well-wishers.

      Organized Jewry is a real problem. I fully agree that focusing exclusively on Jewish perfidy can be and often is problematic, but the answer here is balance. Jews in the West are a primary cause of the problem and any comprehensive solution requires addressing that cause (among other primary causes).

      Your Traditionalist movement should be American, and anti-semitic scapegoating is only marginal as an American tradition.

      This is philosemitic hyperbole. Infatuation with Jews is an American tardition and is not integral to our very identity, as you’re suggesting. It’s not scapegoating if the charges are legitimate and the response is sober and measured.

      Jews should be accepted or shunned individually, on the basis of real issues, not fantasies.

      This project is both tribal and traditional. This necessarily implies excluding all Jews from our identitarian project as an axiomatic matter. Jews who are tribal and traditional (the aforementioned Nationalist Jews) are welcome allies, and we have some of those already. But they integrally cannot be comrades.

      I agree that vintage vilification (or persecution…or genocide) is both immoral and unfeasible in the contemporary strategic context. The TradYouth project will limit itself to holding Organized Jewry and individual Jews accountable for specific charges.

    • civil rights apostate

      My view of Jews depends on whether they are really ethnic Jews. If they are ethnic Jews, they are still following a very wicked religion, but they are also of the people group which Paul loved so much that he would go to hell to get them to Heaven. If they are not ethnic Jews–and I believe that I am fairly safe to say that all but perhaps the Sephardic and Yemeni Jews are not–then they not only adhere to a very evil religion, but they are pretending to be Abraham’s children when they are not, and are therefore a synagogue of Satan, and must be combatted. This does not mean they are irredeemable, but that they are wicked and should be recognized as such.

  • We Shall Triumph

    Parrott’s a frustrated inner-city social worker by the sound of it. Between that and hanging out with costumed Nazis he’s a real piece of work.


By: Matt Parrott


Matt is a founding member of TradYouth and is currently the project's Chief Information Officer. He's been active in the White Identity cause for years, primarily as a blogger but also as a street activist and regional organizer.
%d bloggers like this: