Let’s Stop Trying to be Classy


The name of our upcoming Traditionalist Worker Party has instigated a much-needed debate about the role of class in our struggle, on account of the worker-oriented title and tone of the party. To many, it smacks of outright Marxism. At the very least, it does indeed place the primary focus on the working class.

What role, if any, should class interests and class conflicts play in our political work?

In Scott Terry’s recent post, Tribe Uber Alles, he takes aim at our working class messaging from a consistently traditionalist perspective:

If being a nationalist means we have to accept Eastern European class theory, with all its Marxist presuppositions about “workers” and “owners of capital”, etc. then I’m not a nationalist.

He takes it a step further, going medieval on our rhetoric:

I’m more of a medievalist, a neo-feudalist, or a tribalist. An anti-ist-ist, who envisions a series of decentralized, confederated duchies, where people don’t define themselves in terms of a Marxist financial class, nor in terms of their political and / or religious affiliations (hence the lack of “ists”), nor by the color of their shirt collar; rather they define themselves tribally.

This is a fair critique, but there are two important reasons why a grassroots political movement to advance traditionalist ideals must necessarily focus from the outset on “workers.” It certainly has nothing to do with Marxism, at least not directly. The apparent similarity in our rhetoric to Marxist rhetoric is an artifact of the fact that both Radical Traditionalists and Classical Marxists target capitalists and capitalism, seeking to defend the victims of finance capitalism.

Both Marxists and Traditionalists insist that the merchants are to blame. Traditionalists insist that we must put the merchants back in their proper place in the hierarchy (beneath throne and altar) while Marxists advocate for hurrying up and arriving at the fourth and final stage in the inversion of the varna; a dictatorship of the proletariat. Both Marxists and Traditionalists recognize that we’re in an age of capitalist oligarchs projecting not only their power but their morality and metapolitics as well. We intend to go uphill from there, Marxists intend to go downhill from there.

Throne and altar were the original nemeses of the merchants and financiers long before Karl Marx dreamed up his Utopian ideology. It’s a testament to America’s complete divorce from the history and legacy of Western Traditionalism that a political movement attempting to defend working families from usurious bankers and multinational corporations is mistaken for a Marxist political project rather than a Traditionalist one. The history of support for Bolshevism found on Wall Street and K Street both historically and today contrasts very starkly with their rabid hatred of and consistent opposition to National Socialism, Ba’athism, Falangism, and other political movements which opposed finance capitalists from the Right.

The first reason why a direct and explicit emphasis on workers is imperative is that it cuts through a debilitating problem on the radical right, that of autistic ideologues who can not and will not engage with ordinary folks. Earlier this week, a private conversation in one of the political projects I’m peripherally affiliated with noted the importance of dissociating themselves from “skinheads” and similar riffraff. It’s taken as gospel among the pro-White intelligentsia that working class folks who are indistinguishable from us in all but economic class and subcultural aesthetics must be avoided in absolutely all but two cases: When they can be hit up for money and when they can protect us from getting our asses stomped by Leftists.

Any time a band of people form together to achieve a political goal, there’s a gravitational pull within that band of people toward becoming a subculture rather than a movement. Subcultures are natural and great, save for when the natural tribal compulsion to police the perimeter of the social circle serves to limit the whole point of coming together in the first place, which is to spread a set of ideas and achieve a set of goals beyond that cluster of people. Among White Nationalists, there exist two parallel clusters of mutually-alienated subcultures within the same movement; skinheads and New Right ideologues.

The only predictive difference is economic class, and the TWP seeks to bridge that class divide and develop a united voice for our people across subcultural and economic class lines.

While there are certainly legitimate issues with the skinhead scene to be addressed, what’s rarely addressed is the cowardly and paralytic nature of the New Right’s intellectual scene. They’re allergic to street action, unwilling to invest in, mentor, or support visible activists, and beholden to a narrow spectrum of varied schemes which all share two unifying commonalities: lack of authentic solutions for the white families we purport to be speaking on behalf of and a lack of social courage to promote those solutions.

In my years in these circles, I’ve been clued in on elaborate counter-cyclical investment schemes to save the White race. I’ve been tipped off about diabolical entryist plots to infiltrate this or that institution which sound suspiciously like rationalizations for pursuing secure mainstream jobs. You’ve got your financial Doomers, your peak oil Doomers, your race war Doomers, and many more flavors of Doomer, all of whom intend to eschew engagement with and outreach toward our folks until their particular prophecy unfolds.

And even if these Doomers are right about their prophecies, you need to have a living and breathing political vanguard assembled before whatever event they have in mind. The notion that the political vanguard will emerge and gather around the prophet who called the doomsday scenario is all the more magical thinking which is endemic in our circles.

Contrary to what Scott inferred, sticking the word Worker right in the middle of the party name is actually an attempt to transcend the class problems afflicting our movement by signaling that the project will be visibly and directly engaging with ordinary families, especially those working class families who are most acutely in need of our stewardship and our voice. It’s not that we’re opposed to comfortable and wealthy folks who share our identity. It’s just that they’re not the ones who are suffering right now. They’re not the ones deprived of a political voice.

The second reason why it’s imperative to orient our party around the worker is that a traditionalist vanguard must understand what it truly means to be a virtuous elite. The loyalty of peasants to their lords, soldiers to their generals, and parishioners to their priests must be reciprocated in order for the social order to be authentically traditional. The first step for an elitist intent on reviving authentic traditional elitism in the modern world is stepping up and demonstrating that he’s a thoroughbred and natural steward with his actions.

If we don’t make it clear not only in our branding but in our actions that we’re fighting for them, we’re not going to succeed as a grassroots organizing force for educating and empowering traditional working families. We’re not merely standing for a collection of abstract ideals, our abstract ideals and our party members stand for them.

Decentralization and support for secessionism is a core aspect of the TradWorker vision, so it’s perfectly aligned with Scott’s neo-feudalist agrarian political vision, though I do hope his hierarchical vision for his little fiefdom is one in which his elites have a strong and active stewardship of and support for its struggling families and humble workers.


  • Pingback: Lord Have Mercy, On the Working Man… | Shotgun Barrel Straight()

  • Lew

    I don’t have time at the moment to formulate my thoughts on this foray into class struggle other than to say I think that a worker’s party is a great idea. I haven’t looked at Scott’s piece, but I’ve no idea what he means by Eastern European class theory. I’m a Huey Long Louisianan. Long of course was a Southerner. My sympathies for worker struggle come out that tradition.

  • Folkish Socialist

    If nationalism is spitefully, unscientifically and in a snobbish manner classified in rubric of rightism, then we are right, absolutely right. And we are proud of it, we mourn blindness of leftists, because they think that they are progressive if they reject thought and love for folk. If we seek national socialization of all material and spiritual goods, and if that socialism envisioned and created from time immemorial, is realized and interpreted as extremeness in demands, and if that extremeness is named leftism, then we are left, absolutely left. And we are proud of it, we mourn fallacy of rightists who can not think that truth about social idea can be placed on a field of old geometry. (Dr. Dimitrije Najdanovic)

    P.S.
    My English is far from perfect, but I hope you can understand his thought.

  • Ole Johansen

    Why a New party?
    As an example,have you considered American Freedom Party.
    As the saying goes;
    Divided we stand…..and then we loose.

    • Shotgun

      Tell the AFP to drop what they’re doing and join the Worker’s Party.

    • Ole Johansen

      They where first.
      Is there any communication between the two parties at all?

    • Shotgun

      On your logic, the democrat party was first, so why vote AFP at all?

    • Ole Johansen

      Common,I think you know what I meant?

    • Matt Parrott

      We made a positively heroic attempt over the course of several months to broker some form of agreement where our traditional populist project could be accepted by the party or at least tolerated by the party in the form of a caucus.

      It was actually the AFP board’s proposal that we go off and form our own separate party, and we remain on friendly terms with the party.

      The bottom line is that you now have a choice between a more libertarian and secular political vehicle and a more populist and traditionalist political vehicle for your pro-white advocacy. While there’s some truth to the notion that we’ve all got to stand together, I believe that we can be unified in loyalty and overarching purpose while respectfully dividing on how we go about achieving our goals.

  • Eric Striker

    What we need is guild socialism as seen in the Third Reich, where workers are empowered and justly compensated while owners are still allowed to make a (reasonable) profit. Argentine Third Reich philosopher and minister Walter Darre’s blood and soil doctrine is an interesting revival of the traditional/medieval Germanic land system that preserved all of the good concepts without the historical injustices.

    While I like a lot of Evola’s concepts, like it or not his contemporary revival is a big reason for the lack of productive physical action amongst New Rightists. We have to watch for the pitfalls of nostalgia and not confuse this for Fascism, as Mussolini said, we must also be men of our times. A modern take on natural values as Fascism and Nationalsocialism offered should be looked at and contrasted with systems that were technically more “traditionalist” on the surface, like the failed society that became of Dollfuss’s Austria or German Czar Nicholas’ lack of understanding the people he ruled culminating in his incompetent government’s overthrow by a minority of Judeo-Bolsheviks. Theoretically, traditionalists should’ve supported Dollfuss over Hitler, but realistically and practically, nobody would rather live (or starve) under the Jew-infected 1935 Austria and its decaying aristocrats and priests vs the modern miracle that followed the Anschluss and won the support of 99% of the people. Unfortunately, some “traditionalists” have the nerve to side with Dollfuss just because of the window dressing.

    The success of movements in the 1930’s in synthesizing classical ideals with modern technology Evola critically supported, but personally resented that society was able to move forward and revive Western civilization without much of his “aristocratic” input. In his time he was seen as a bit of a kook who occasionally hit the bullseye, he was a good esoteric historian, but completely aloof and worthless as a political philosopher (especially since his response to people not genuflecting before his title was to take his ball and go home).

  • Eric Striker

    I just read Scott Terry’s understanding of racial socialism. It’s off the mark, it’s standard libertarian boilerplate even if he consciously doesn’t realize it. I suspect the Judaic anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell link on his page may be a partial culprit.

    This view is somewhat common in the South, and the root of it is the infiltration of GOP cuckservatives peddling their liberal poison that some take up in reaction to real fears of subsidizing colonies of feral negroes and illegal Mexicans. But hostility to (non-leftist) socialism is ahistorical in the South. Go read George Wallace’s 1968 platform, the one he swept the South with, and you’ll see he was actually to the “far left” of Obama on most economic issues! Thomas E. Watson, one of the most famous and influential Southern populists to ever live, was more or less a socialist, as was the Populist Party before it was hijacked and taken into oblivion by institutional forces. Even Donald Trump is more or less a “socialist” on numerous questions, and he’s riding a tidal wave of support from conservative Southerners today.

    The White race was strongest, united, and most revolutionary in the South when worker’s unions were strong, the welfare state was strong (but logical), and taxation was progressive. This is not a coincidence. Loose, decentralized societies have loose, decentralized citizens; easy pickens for the northern capitalist Jew.

    You’re not just a Terry, you’re a white man/western man, you’re the product of a collectivist effort for survival and expansion our fore fathers in their genius and moral character ushered in. They didn’t just pool their resources to accomplish this, they put their very lives in a national bank, some of them were never able to retrieve it. Without these efforts, we wouldn’t exist. The people you are to thank weren’t just Terrys, they were millions who fought and died in pitched battles and wrestled the land you’re standing upon from indians.

    To see how a feudalist society fares in a mechanized, modernized and centralized world, brush up on how a few thousand Jews backed by Wall Street from the Lower East Side, NYC brought down Czar Nicholas’ Empire.

    • Shotgun

      Well, it certainly seems like you’ve got the world figured out.

    • Eric Striker

      Not the world, but enough of it to know what’s right and what needs to happen.

      The big people, the big names, they have spoken loud and clear: they are telling us to fuck ourselves, as they all intermarry with Jews and guarantee their children a place behind electrified fences of New South Africa USA.

      If you think the machete wielding coffee colored men that will rule the streets your great grand children will live on will give two shits about your “tribe”, think again. The little people (that’s me, and that’s YOU) have to unite to win at any cost to avoid this future. This is serious and we have to work with haste. Jew Von Mises has no answers. And the fact that you seem (please correct me if I’m misreading, and I will retract this part) to think you’re going to get some 16th century style principality under the Terry crest in the future makes me think you aren’t taking this as seriously as you should be.

      I don’t know everything, but in this case, I think I’m more grounded than some of the ideas you are setting out.

  • Dr. Doom

    You’re playing the enemy’s game. You cannot win when you play by someone else’s rules, especially when they’re low-down back-stabbing larcenous perverted worms. These elections are meaningless. Stalin said its not who votes but who counts the votes that matters. Soros has bought the vote counters and now an Israeli company has the counter in Spain.
    Democracy is a dead end for civilization. It matters not what the issues are, the low-brow fools are too steeped in minor problems to see the big picture. America was not founded by activists but men who fought. Fight or die, men of the West. The Orc Army will kill you and your children and make your women birth ugly monsters to serve as golems for putrid Goblins.
    Join the Mobile Infantry. Get citizenship in The New Order. Bugs don’t respond to talk. The time for talking is over.

    • Matt Parrott

      It’s legally structured as a party and we will be campaigning for offices, but this is more about the organizing and networking of the party itself than it is about getting in office and working within the system for positive change.

      Fighting isn’t always necessarily physical fighting. Even in total war, only a fraction of the men “fighting” are actually engaged in violence, and even then only a fraction of the total time. All politics is fighting. And while I’ll never ideologically renounce “violence,” per se, I can say with confidence that at this moment in our struggle, going out and “fighting” in the way you’re suggesting would prove disastrous.

  • Ole Johansen

    To Matt Parrot
    Glad to hear you have tried to make common cause With AFP.
    Maybe I have to read their program more closely,I haven’t recognise them to be libertarian.
    I hope you are right about that we can be unified,but the historic empiri
    show that we wouldn’t do it.

  • Hammerheart

    Ole Johansen: Peter Brimelow (VDARE) Kevin MacDonald, Greg Johnson (if I’m not mistaken) all freely admit they are or were Ayn Rand Libertarians, & that AR/L is what helped propel them towards a pro-white stance. You can google it. Some of us say ‘And that explains a few things…’

    • Eric Striker

      Ayn Rand and Libertarianism don’t bring you closer to racial debate, it’s the other way around. Most white people who are libertarians are motivated by the fact that they don’t want to subsidize blacks and want to have the freedom of association to live in all-white enclaves, the other stuff is just window dressing. Some people, for reasons of either lack of access to information or in other cases cowardice, choose the Jew-approved Politically Correct and useless route towards achieving these goals, which is libertarianism.

      The problem is libertarianism is toxic for your person. It’s ideologues are just as Jewish as the Marxist ones, and this poisonous influence can be seen in the moral relativism the average libertarian leans towards. The hyper-individualism is not just ahistorical, misanthropic, and false view of man, it’s the anti-thesis of racialism and nationalism. I fear too many people coming out of the libertarian scene into the white one can in some cases bring that movement-retarding baggage with them.

  • Hammerheart

    I think you folks should have a look at youtube video ‘John Lydon: Russell Brand’s Revolution is idiotic.’ References the white working class & identifies Brand’s agenda without ever mentioning the word joo. Worth 4 minutes & I think it has potential applications.

  • Hammerheart

    Eric Striker: Your criticism of higher-IQ New Righters are using Evola to hide behind high-sounding philosophy & inaction is just. However, no-one can read Metaphysics of War & seriously conclude Evola never advocated/believed in ‘direct action.’ That’s their fault, not Evola’s. It’s a misunderstanding of the Kali Yuga & Ride The Tiger concepts.

  • Eric Striker

    People become libertarians because it’s a PC way of being “racist”.

    • Matt Parrott

      In practice, Evola succumbed to the error that he warned against in his theory, that of mistaking sentimentalism and reactionary conservatism for authentic Radical Traditionalist principle.

      Meritocracy and Aristocracy are one and the same in Radical Traditionalist theory. The extent to which merit and nobility diverge is the extent to which the nobility is unworthy of the traditional deference accorded to it and the extent to which traditionalists should side with their challengers.

      The SS were more Traditionalist than the Junkers.

      Those who side with Europe’s degenerate nobility against the virile and radical fascist movements of the age imagine that they’re cleverly triangulating in a Traditionalist direction against a politically inconvenient historical chapter, when they’re actually confirming what’s intuitively obvious, that they’re conservative reactionaries masquerading as Traditionalists.

  • Eric Striker

    Hammerheart: Evola flip flopped on many issues throughout his life. He went from an active and fiercely anti-christian pagan to softening this until he started condemning the former. You can see this pattern on many other of his beliefs.

    I don’t know how else to interpret Ride the Tiger, but I think it’s pretty clear that Evola is telling people to give up on politics as a means to resisting the NWO/globalism/liberals. That is a fatal error, and regardless of how it’s supposed to be taken, the new rightists see themselves as standing above the fray as the ‘plebians’ fight for what’s theirs beneath them.

    When reading Evola chiding Mussolini for connecting with the masses, his offense and subtle envy is palpable. While a reluctant supporter, Evola could never come to grips with the fact that the son of a blacksmith, an Austrian corporal, and their working and lower middle class followers were the ones bringing about a Western renaissance in Europe–at times outright defying the “aristocrats”. Evola was a respected kook in Italy and Germany, but he always resented the fact that Nationalsocialism and Fascism brought the working class to power and succeeded with flying colors.

    Similar to Evola, this was a big reason why the conservative “Von” divas in Germany were constantly grumbling and even conspiring against Hitler. When the dust settled, the proud traditions and institutions of the Vons in the Heer never were able to keep up with the zeal and prestige (the new traditions) established with laurels by the “rabble” of the Waffen SS. The meritocracy of Fascism and NS hurt Evola’s ego, and after the war things got much worse, so he just said “fuck it all” by Ride The Tiger. That’s not something that applies to us though.

  • Dave

    Hitler sought to break the international bankers, end usury, brake parasitic finance capitalism, make the larger corporations responsible for acting in the best interests of the nation, while he allowed private property and the profit motive. The nation/govt. prints its own interest free currency. ‘Big money’ was not allowed to operate in favor of its own narrow interests.
    This, while he sought to make the proletariat property owners, make them more prosperous- contrasted with the Marxist goal, which was to make the nation more proletariat.

    National Socialism was communitarian, advocating class collaboration instead of Marxist class warfare/ struggle.
    Another feature was the NS rejection of Marxist materialism, the Reich was spiritual, an organic whole, each economic group cooperating to enhance the nation or state, this state was really the people, or peoples will. Thus Hitler effectively nationalized not just a few key industries, he nationalized the German people into the state. This big government, ideally is not to be feared, since this government is composed of the collectivity of the people and their will, informed by racial truth, the leaders subject to political recall and national referendum or initiative, the leaders are not allowed to own stock and cannot amass wealth, treasury books are open to all.

    Additional factors was an emphasis on the importance of the small farmer as a means to maintain national/racial morality…….and Autarchy or national self reliance. ( Finished goods being traded for raw materials- this is how the Jew middle man was eliminated, there was no need for any ‘international banker’ with his high interest loan).

    Evola is, in the end, not very helpful. Hitler was a revolutionary who was often opposed by traditional or reactionary conservatives, this is where Evola seems to be.

    Libertarian theory is not usually racialist (except possibly Rotharb) and they do not think in terms of group identity, being more individualistic and thus they tend to be ‘soft’ on issues like mass immigration, often using the argument that they dont want immigration for tax and welfare reasons; they are not opposed for any racial/ethnic concerns, which to me , is a grave error.

    We do need a ‘workers’ party as long as this understood to mean white workers and ‘worker’ has a broad meaning, meaning both blue and white collar…. What we oppose, usually, are those who are at the two economic extremes- the welfare class and the 1% country clubbers who help orchestrate off-shoring and outsourcing of our manufacturing base overseas.

    I hope one day all the disparate ‘far right’ parties in the US will all merge into one party that will mainly serve as a super-club, to raise awareness, and also take over many local government/corporate functions, when the time comes.

    • Eric Striker

      I agree with most of this. Reactionaries and Conservatives can never succeed, they can only preserve and conserve what revolutionaries establish.

  • Fr. John+

    Let’s remember the last time White Americans actually stood up to their Jewish overlords, then, on this anniversary, the 100th anniversary of the last time Whites actually treated Christ-killers as they deserved to be treated. Never forgive, never forget.

    “This Monday, 8/17, marks the 100th year anniversary of the “lynching” of Leo Frank, a magnificent exercise in justice. This article shows in detail how a massive conspiracy developed to clear the murdering pedophile Frank of charges. This is how the “jews” work; after all the Talmud clearly states raping and murdering goyim children is a deeply religious act-http://theamericanmercury.org/…/100-reasons-proving-leo-f…/”

    – comment found at
    http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2015/08/dr-tony-martin-on-judaic-bullying.html

  • Joel

    Yo, are you going to make a PAC? They’re really easy to make.

    You might want to compile an FAQ on tradyouth’s beliefs. I both like the free market and understand a problem with “capitalist oligarchs” mentioned in the article. I’d like to see a list of concrete goals and add to it or constructively criticize it.


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: