Jeremiah 6:16

Welcome to the ThunderStruck Culture and Politics website!

ThunderStruck strives to be a source for conservative political commentary for nationwidemecu
issues and topics that affect us all. Opinion, journalism, snark, or pop-culture, you’ll find it all here!

Among the chief concerns are conservative/libertarian issues. Also, peaceful and legal Texas independence for the preservation of U.S. founding principles is promoted here.

Please be sure to like us on Facebook at, and follow us on twitter at, both of which have additional content.

Thanks for reading!

Ryan Thorson

Thoughts on “Can My Children Be Friends With White People?”

“Donald Trump’s election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped. I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.” These are the words of Ekow Yonkah, professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, written in an op-ed in the New York Times, entitled: “Can My Children Be Friends With White People?”

In the piece, Yonkah bemoans the election of Donald Trump as one of where race is the primary factor of consideration, ergo a vote for Trump is a vote against black people (or non-whites), and a vote for Hillary is presumably a vote for racial minorities. Although he makes some distinction between the white nationalist component of Trump’s coalition and those who supported Trump for economic considerations, it is only slight as he nonetheless declares, “My heart is unbearably heavy when I assure you we cannot be friends.” In fact, so deep is his belief on this matter, he extends this ill-will and lack of benefit-of-doubt to all whites. His final prescription is that white people need to prove their loyalty to black people through consistent deeds of self-sacrifice, if there is ever to be any kind of a reconciliation that will transform the two groups into ones that “live together and not simply beside one another.”

Before I address Mr. Yonkah’s comments, first I’d like to say that I support his freedom of association. No doubt, my concession would be received by Mr. Yonkah as patronizing, but for me, association is an important freedom that deserves mentioning for how often devalued. So, If Yonkah wants to only form meaningful relationships according race or whatever, that is his choice, and I would not dare to interfere except to say I find it narrow minded. Mostly, I think it is sad that he’s decided to saddle his children with his own anxieties, but that is also his privilege as a parent. In any event, Yonkah doesn’t need my approval, and I would oppose any act of government to force the issue on anyone, within reason.

Additionally, I’d like to say that I understand some of his fears. I was not a Trump supporter, partly because I found the man morally deficient, but also because I was concerned with a part of his supporters that organized themselves along racial lines. I’m told that this constituency was small, but I was not impressed with Trump’s disavowal of such groups, like the KKK, which had endorsed the then candidate. The condemnation was weak, and like most of Trump’s positions, straddled the fence, leaving the door open in the minds of these groups that Trump was really on their side. Having said that, I don’t think the Trump was animated by racism, nor really any coherent ideology. He was and is boorish, and though some things he said could be described as bigoted, little evidence exists to demonstrates a ideological devotion to the racial inferiority of others. The examples Yonkah gives are misstatements of what Trump actually said, and I say that as a someone who’s been a consistent critic of Trump. Additionally, I think Yonkah’s blanket condemnation of all Trump supporters was ill-founded and ironic.

If you want to be honest, this past election was tough for the voters. I think it not much of an understated to say the 2016 was a contest between the two worst candidates of U.S. history. Trump’s issues and idiosyncrasies Yonkah highlighted, but because he and the left in general fail to acknowledge the criminality and corruption of Hillary Clinton, not to mention their own penchant for using the government to push an inorganic social agenda, they will always be left scratching their heads as to why Trump won. Also, this article highlights Yonkah’s own lack of self-awareness, that he can point the finger at people who say, “You can’t trust non-whites,” when he himself is saying, “You can’t trust whites.” Most Trump supporters that are concerned with race in any way don’t fall into the white-supremacist category. If there was any kind of generally racial component to a sizeable amount of Trump voters, I think it amounts to racial burn-out more than anything else. These people are just tired of getting the role of the congenitally evil white-guy from central casting. This insistence of racial culpability, by virtue of skin color, is in itself a profoundly racist conviction, and many chafe under its yoke.

It’s often said that we need to have an honest conversation on race, and I agree. Though it seems we do nothing but talk about race, very little of it is in any way honest. What people like Yonkah want is to be the gatekeepers of racial reconciliation, and their price is eternal deference. But what they fail to realize is, largely, they already have it. Aside from the various actions of the government and industry to favor black Americans over others (especially in the world of academia where Yonkah resides), for decades now, media and popular culture have pounded into the American public this idea that they are uniquely culpable for the racial wrongs of America’s past. It doesn’t matter that institutions like slavery and Jim Crowe and those that perpetuated them have been moldering in their graves for decades, nor does it matter how small the number of people that can be demonstrably shown to have benefited from privilege conferred by these institutions. Yet, like a little boy going to Sunday School to have it constantly reinforced that he was born in a state of sin, so white America is sermonized to on almost every medium for decades about their original sin. This has created fear in white people towards black America, not of being robbed or replaced, but of being marked with a scarlet letter R.

Being labeled a racist in U.S. society is an ever-present fear for whites, even among those who downplay the word as meaningless for its overuse. Apart from being deeply hurtful to generally well-meaning people, it can also destroy a person’s reputation, causing them to lose social standing, promotion, and even livelihood. But more than the fear of having such a label applied to them wantonly, many white people are ever longing for positive confirmation from blacks that they believe them to be good people, that no matter that they share the same pigment as the guy with the whip in 12 Years a Slave, they themselves have done nothing wrong. Instead of racism running deep in white America, I think there’s a better case to say that anti-racism runs deep in the same.

The most egregious example of whites begging for forgiveness that I witnessed was in Jamaica. Sadly, I didn’t mean that metaphorically. I was there in the late 90s as part of a church-group to aid local Caribbean churches in their activities. We did things like clearing brush, maintenance, and other evangelical tasks. We ended up at a Caribbean youth summit, the climax of our 2-month service project. There, the organization featured special musical/evangelical guests, a wife and husband team from Canada. At one point during a service that they officiated, this white woman said to her predominantly black audience that God told her that all the whites should join her on stage to apologize for slavery, and that’s exactly what they did! They got down on their knees and abased themselves for acts of evil that they had absolutely nothing to do with! While they were down there, they might as well have made atonement for cancer, which makes about as much sense. Certainly, the Caribbeans didn’t ask for such kowtowing. It was simply a manifestation of inset white-guilt, that in front of a sea of black faces, their reaction was to make a gesture of deference. And while this is an extreme example of just how desperately white America wants to be reconciled to black America, I think it is closer to the truth than the narrative offered by the good professor.

Obviously, the problems of race, more to the point, the feelings associated with the problems of race, are never going to be solved with one essay. I don’t deny that the historic experience of black America has few rivals in terms of struggle and oppression. However, crimes are not committed by groups; they are committed by individuals. Much the same, honorable deeds are not committed by groups, but individuals, and to be honorable requires discipline. An individual may have racial hang-ups, but the question is will they be controlled by them or overcome them. A white-man may fear a black-man’s power to call him a racist, but he must choose to suppress that feeling and deal with that person as an individual. Otherwise, he might miss out on a valuable friendship of equals, and not one where he feels he has to walk about on egg-shells. The same could be said of Yonkah. If he doesn’t want to miss out on what could be a valuable friendship with a white person, he’ll have to put aside his fear that the white-person is going to be racist to him. Sure, that can be scary. Often our prejudices act like a quilt, keeping us secure. When we wear them, we’re comfortable in our knowledge that the world makes sense.  Even if it’s an understanding the half the world is bad, at least you can categorize it and react accordingly; it’s a shield from harm. It has always been easier to generalize about people. Can you imagine if we had to take people as individuals and not mega-groups organized along racial lines? Madness! But unless we do, and consistently, we will succumb to racial-regressivism.

One can always protect themselves from people they don’t know, but to do so merely by race is useless. If I was robbed by white person, I doubt I would console myself in that fact. And certainly, all true friendships must be made with people you believe will stand by you in moments of crisis. Doing so within ones one’s social/cultural group, with people who have somewhat of a shared understanding of the world can be an easier way to form such bond, while seeming wise, is not a sure way. There are no sure ways. Instead, wisdom suggest that whenever possible, we should all practice grace and the benefit of the doubt to our neighbor. There none of us that don’t struggle with our own issues, but it is better, and potentially more rewarding, to show a measure of understanding and openness to learning the character of person instead of summarily rejecting them based on an arbitrary factor outside of their control, which is not necessarily indicative of any point of view. So, let’s not make exclusionary assumptions based upon skin color. What gives me a heavy heart is my having to have to say that, as if it were some kind of esoteric insight rather than common sense… for anyone.


Happy Dependence Day

It’s been a while since I’ve put out any musings on this blog. It’s just been difficult to pull myself away from the work I’ve been doing with the Texas Nationalist Movement and Texian Partisan, both as both editor and contributor.

Anyway, today is July 4th, and folks are out celebrating… something. They may be enjoying family & friends, experiencing the joys of the grill, or endulging their enthusiasm for explosives, but few (I’d wager) are really seriously contemplating independence and the hard fought Liberties of the 1776 vintage.

And why should they? We’ve come a long way since Valley Forge. Concerns of tyranny and concepts like the sovereignty of the individual have become passé. In fact, we’ve largely gotten used to the expansive idea of government, so much so that the idea of independence has lost much of its meaning today.

In all honesty, how many of us truly want to be independent? Do we vote that way, expecting the politicians we empower to reduce government for the preservation of Liberty and society, or do we just want ours? To many, in action if not in word, we really don’t want Washington out of our lives, do we?

Ultimately, we seem quite content to continue our infantalization. We want the government to, as Hillary Clinton put it, to “take care of [us],” despite pontification to the contrary. Given a chance, we wouldn’t part with a single federal regulation overseeing the condition of our hamster ball. We actively refuse to forgo the many ways D.C. subsidizes us; let the future generations figure out how to pay for it! Of course, you can just forget about a popular movement calling for government to scale back to constitutional proportions, being able to only do those things that only it should do, leaving us to be responsible for our own choices. I mean, who wants responsibility?

The destructive cost of all this government is another thing. Politicians of both sides know that we can’t afford continuing the kind of patronage (aka entitlements) that Washington tosses out like so much parade-route candy, robbing us of our autonomy and binding our future to its tender mercies. Both parties refuse to reform our spending beyond negligible cuts to future increases, nor will they pay back debt which is set to reach $30 trillion in less than 10 years. Spending continues to grow, and our debt has amassed to proportions beyond what hoped-for economic growth can remedy. Our debt has become like the ocean: so big you can ignore its unfathomable depths… until the storm comes, and it always does.

Does any intelligent person really think that nothing will happen if this continues, if we carry a national debt multiple times our GDP? Do any really think that American exceptionalism means that we are not bound by the same economic laws as all other countries in all of the history of the world? Of course, it would be nice, if such a thing weren’t just an incredibly stupid fantasy of a Union that has long since lost the political will to save itself! Heck, I’d settle for just me being able to run up my personal debt without any consequences! But in reality, both persons and nations must pay the piper.

Meanwhile, our fatuous politicians tell us cutting back wouldn’t be compassionate, and very few are willing to try even the most modest of reductions, afraid of being demonized. But who among them wonders how many people will they be able to bestow compassion upon when the economy collapses? And instead of facing this reality and acting accordingly, our ruling class engages in fantasy, remaining stupidly optimistic that our problems will either fix themselves, or (more likely) holding fast to the hope that they’ll be out of office, that it won’t be their problem when it all goes down.

From top to bottom, we are a nation of heroin junkies, with our proverbial smack being other people’s money. Our leaders crave the power gained from giving stolen gifts, and are unwilling to stop; and the voters cooperate, craving the gifts given, loyally voting for the politicians who deals them. We are content to let the politicians bribe us with our own money (or other people’s), with zero concern that government is on a destructive path, but rather focusing our energies to ensure that our side is the one distributing the goodies to the faithful. Rule of law, limited government, individual Liberty and responsibility are quickly forgotten in the face of partisan victory, assuming they were ever valued in the first place.

There are yet a few more years left in the Union, a little more road to kick that can down, a little more flat top before the cliff side opens up before our plummeting vehicle. Don’t get me wrong! I’m not saying there’s hope, or that the Union will be saved. That’s not going to happen. We’re far too busy playing the power game, with one side celebrating that their boy made Captain of the sinking ship, and the other side plotting his removal. Yet, while the U.S. diligently tries to fix its hull-breach with a pick-axe, I and others will continue our steady work to man the lifeboat Texas, hoping that an independent Texas will pull back from the brink whereas the other 49 would not. But, for the time being, for what it’s worth, happy July fourth; happy dependence day. Enjoy it now, because it’s not likely to be here tomorrow.

The Alamo Guard Returns

(Original Post at:

Last weekend marked the triumphant return of the Alamo Guard to the Alamo!

For regular readers of the Texian Partisan, you likely remember an article published last month on how a four-year tradition of honoring the Texas Republic’s fallen soldiers had been cut short, rather abruptly. However, do to your quick and determined efforts, the tradition of laying a wreath at the Alamo wall every second Saturday of the month has been restored.

“It really felt great to be back,” says Alamo Guard Captain Chris Jacka, whose company was in rare form on this momentous occasion, featuring a larger than normal showing of Guard members. “The Rangers were very gracious in welcoming us back, and wanted it made clear again that they stand with us 100%. They were glad we were able to continue our professional relationship.” Indeed. The Alamo Guard is very grateful to the Alamo Rangers for first making possible the Guard’s memorial on Alamo grounds. Additionally, the TNM is grateful that the management of the Alamo saw fit to reverse their original decision, and looking forward to greater spirit of cooperation in the future.

With the resolution of last month’s drama, it is good to know that Guard is back, doing their part to preserve our heritage as Texans, reminding us to recognize the dear price that was paid for our land. No doubt, the position of the Guard is now much stronger than it had been. Hopefully, this only beginning of good things to come for the Alamo Guard, the Texas Nationalist Movement, and Texas.

If you would like to see a list of upcoming Alamo Memorial Marches click here.

New Poll Suggests That the Dutch Favor Leaving the EU

Read the original posting here:

In the wake of Brexit and similar independence movements throughout Europe, a new survey suggests that “exit” fever has hit the Dutch!

According to a poll conducted by the Maurice de Hond group, 56 per cent of the Dutch (after excluding the undecided) would “vote to leave the EU compared to 44 per cent who would opt for remain.” This is true across age and Gender, varying only a little between groups.

Per an article that ran in the Express, the rise in popularity for a NEXIT in the Netherlands owes to the inclusion an option in that poll for political independence while maintaining some economic ties to Europe. For many, this was a more palatable choice, allowing some to give their support for independence whereas before they were unwilling to do so. These findings are significant and could have huge ramifications for the Dutch in their upcoming elections.

Reinvigorated nationalism seems to be a trend in the world, moving it away from the favoring of multi-nation governance. Even in Texas and other states, similar polls have found that a huge number of citizens believe that their states would be better off if separated from the government in Washington. A 2014 Reuters poll found that the percentages favoring independence were as great as 50% among the two biggest voting blocs (Republicans and Independents), and even 35% of Democrats think that Texas should be independent once more. Yet, somewhat counterintuitively, this kind of support is not often met with politicians trying to exploit it. Unlike countries like Britain, France, and the Netherlands, there are few candidates in Texas that will openly support independence. However, with numbers like these, the question remains, “How long can the government in Austin continue to snub this issue?” If these trends continue, the issue of independence will continue to grow until it’s impossible to ignore. The political establishment should take note; it could be that future Texas political candidates, perhaps even for governor, might run successfully on the cause of restoring Texas sovereignty while their generation goes down in failure, with the naive belief that the idea of Texit will just go away.

The Itsy Bitsy Spider and the Unbridled Federal Agency

(Photo: Gallifer Cave, Travis County, TX (c) 2011, Piers Hendrie)

Here’s another peice I wrote for Texian Partisan. Original post at:


The biggest issue with the US Congress’ habit of delegating its law-making authority to the regulatory arm of the executive branch is that it often leads to ambiguous standards and low accountability for federal agents implementing policy. Meanwhile, the regular folks are left walking on eggshells, not knowing exactly what’s expected of them, but being very aware that they’re nonetheless at the mercy of a federal agency with little oversight, a big imagination for filling in the vagary of federal statutes, enormous law-enforcement authority, and literally the power to print money.


In a recent story from FoxNews, one Texas land-owner finds himself the latest target of the regulatory state. Rancher John Yearwood of Georgetown, Texas had the misfortune of an endangered species of spider being discovered on his property. Known as the Bone Cave Harvestman or Texella reyesi (an admittedly cool name!), the blind cave dwelling spider is preventing Mr. Yearwood from using his land. No, it’s not that the spider is so dangerous that John needs to steer clear of it, rather it’s the EPA that’s the danger.


Enforcing the Endangered Species act, the Environmental Protection Agency is defending our eight-legged friend with the power of levying fines and incarceration if Mr. Yearwood does anything that might disturb the little arachnid. From all appearances, John wants to stay on the right side of the law and comply with whatever is required of him, but that’s the problem: the EPA won’t specify what he can or can’t do on his own property. At this point, any activity on his land could conceivably get him into trouble with DC, so for now, the only way he’ll know that he’s done something wrong is when they come to arrest him. Until the federal bureaucracy is reigned in, Mr. Yearwood is left with little safe recourse but to leave his property unused while petitioning to get old Texella off the endangered species list. Until either of these things happens, he might as well own land on the moon; it’ll be as much use to him.


As a person formerly connected to the National Park Service, I am not unsympathetic to the cause of preserving endangered flora and fauna. Certainly, most Texans would likely want to preserve our native species for future generations to enjoy, if for no other reason. However, the Washington solution seems to follow a typical pattern of ham-fisted implementation and apathy to common courtesy and respect for the rights of land-owners. The EPA could work with local authorities and ranchers like Mr. Yearwood to find a compromise that is satisfactory to all concerned, perhaps providing generous compensation if nothing can be worked out, or at the very least providing specific guidance to those trying to get along under such unfortunate circumstances. Instead, the federal government does what it likes, indifferent to how many criminals they make out of the otherwise law-abiding. “We’re from Washington! Stinks to be You!” should be the EPA’s motto.

Oklahoma May be Leaving the Door Open for Secession

(Graphic by Darwinek)

It’s a 2-fer! A second article in same day! Original posting link below.

If you’ve been following the Texian Partisan, you might have read the recent story about North Carolina State politicians who proposed removing secession prohibitions from their state’s constitution, clearing the way for a vote on independence. Well, NC is by no means the only or the first state to have their officials openly considering this.

Enter Senator Joseph Silk. This Oklahoma politician suggested that, during the 2017 legislative session, Oklahoma remove a portion of Section I-1 of the state’s constitution. “Which portion?” you may ask. Well, in the area where it says, “The State of Oklahoma is an inseparable part of the Federal Union,” he thinks they should lose that bit where it says “inseparable.” Quoted in an article appearing on AOL, Senator Silk said, “’Clearly, our founding fathers believed that no people or group of people should be inseparably bound politically to another.’”

If such a resolution is passed, it would leave yet another state with a possible exit strategy from the Union. And while the Senator doesn’t believe that Independence is something Oklahoma needs immediately, the fact that he and a growing number of legally elected state officials are openly speaking about it and making motions in the direction of independence is a good indicator of growing general dissatisfaction in the US federal government.

Ideas like independence are typically accompanied by the usual suspects of nay-saying, people that think such things could never happen in modernity. The afore-mentioned article quotes one such person. Nevertheless, such pronouncements on the impossibility of secession seem to be more wishful thinking than informed analysis. It’s a common fantasy to believe that one is living at the end of history, standing on the pinnacle of humanity, and that our future is one of global governance rather than many national identities. No doubt, every successful civilization has had similar notions. However, it’s important to note that while human achievement and knowledge has advanced immensely through the millennia, human nature and needs largely have not. The real lesson of history is that governments come and, when the people chafe under them, they go. And the larger a bureaucracy gets, the more removed it becomes from those it governs. If the governed are acutely aware of this, it’s their tendency to prefer and seek their own governance to that of an increasingly alien power, even if that power doesn’t think of itself as “alien.” Until human nature changes, we’ll have to put off the Star Trek future for later. Sorry Scotty.

What has been common throughout history will be again. Nationalism is on the rise, and while it may not be the bloody ordeal it has been in times past (now relegated to the ballot box), it is still a common factor of today’s body politic. Consider the recent Brexit from the EU, or the fact that the world has expanded from 72 countries in 1945, to this day’s 196 (If you count Taiwan). It’s only a matter of time until this historical and global phenomenon returns to our continent. If the United States continues to govern outside it’s constitutionally granted sphere of authority, it won’t be long before the first US states decide they’d rather govern themselves than continue to outsource their sovereignty to an apparatus that doesn’t share their values or concerns and remains content to ignore them… except on Tax Day, mid-term elections, and during the race for the White House.

– Ryan Thorson

The Texas Sovereignty Act: The Right Direction, But Not Far Enough

Photo by Daniel Mayer

Here’s another article I submitted to the Texian Partisan.

For most in Texas, the problem with the federal government squeezing the sovereignty of the states, much like Boris Karloff choking the life out of his creator in Frankenstein, is a huge concern. Filed on February 23rd for the current Texas Legislative session, a bill known as The Texas Sovereignty Act, or House Bill 2338, attempts to block all unconstitutional actions of Congress, the courts, or the Executive branch from being enforced in Texas.

This bill proposes the creation of a permanent Joint Legislative Committee on Constitutional Enforcement. This committee would consider if a federal act was passed with the appropriate original-intent authority of the US Constitution. If the committee votes that improper authority was used in a federal action, they would then deliver their finding that it was unconstitutional to the Texas legislature. If the Legislature concurs, they would then pass a resolution and forward it to the Governor. Finally, if the governor signs it into law, that federal action would become illegal in Texas, as well as making those attempting to enforce the nullified action in danger of prosecution from the State of Texas. Furthermore, the government of Texas would formally inform the federal government that Texas will not comply with said action.

First, I would like to state that I admire the spirit with which this bill was written. It’s very specific in how it defines and proposes to deal with the very real threat of un-constitutional power-grabs by all branches of the federal government. It makes me proud as a Texan to think that such a bill could even be considered and such a line of thought is definitely a step in the right direction towards reclaiming Texas’ stolen sovereignty. There’s only one problem: it’s not likely to work.

Let’s examine the wisdom behind taking on Washington while still being very much under its control. The moment that Texas nullifies its first federal act, it’ll be war with DC. It’s not as if they’re going to say “Our bad!” and back down. Now I’m just speculating, but with speculation based on real-world analogs (some which I’ve hyperlinked to), and this is what I think likely to happen. It will begin with threats from the executive and condemnation in congress. No doubt, someone will challenge it in court, with an unaccountable judge waiting in the wings to anxiously ready to imagine a reason why Texas… can’t! In the meantime, congress and the president will begin punitive actions against Texas. They’ll try to disrupt commerce, seize large swaths of Texas land, shutdown airline travel, withhold federal funds, forget to enforce the border, etc. Even if all this fails to temper Texas’ resolve, don’t look to Washington to ease the pressure. That’s when they’ll get creative, finding new torments and slights of the pettiest kind, knowing that they must make an example of Texas or else other states will start asserting their 10th amendment rights. Under such pressure, what then will Texas do?

I absolutely agree with the authors of this bill that DC is acting in an illegitimate manner and something needs to be done, but Washington’s been this way for a very long time, and merely telling the modern incarnation of the federal government that they can only exercise the powers enumerated them by COTUS is like telling a heroin addict to stop trainspotting. How many junkies have sobered-up that way? Not very many, I’d wager. For an addict to recover, he must first be isolated. COTUS is supposed to be our means of isolating the government, but there’s not enough collective political will left in the Union to commit our junky. And as we all should know, Washington is incapable of reforming itself.

The only way to effectively deal with Washington is to declare our legal right to peaceful independence. Once we’ve given Washington notice that they are in breach of contract, and our partnership is nullified, the recourse of D.C. has to punish us with its courts, regulatory state, or our own money dangling as a carrot to preferred action will be effectively zero. They’ll be out of the picture, restrained by the knowledge that their status in the world and the outcome of negotiations (which the US will want) will be hampered by harassing behavior. Besides, if you consider the ends of half-measures like TTSA, they’ll probably lead to independence, ultimately. After all, when the federal government doesn’t back down, Texas will have little other recourse than to reclaim full sovereignty, that is unless we back down, adopt a submissive posture, and embrace our status of DC drone. Such a humiliating result to this risky gambit would be a waste of time, bring unnecessary suffering, and justly doom the careers of every Texas politician who lost their spine.

It’s time to face facts and abandon partial solutions. The federal monster, created by the states, is loose, wrecking all in its path. If we go at Washington with the 10th amendment, they won’t be impressed, and will do their best to make life miserable for Texans. The only way to deal with this monster is to unmake it, at least as far as Texas is concerned. And why not? At this point, Texas needs Washington like an oak needs termites. If we assert our right to leave the union for interfering with our sovereignty, a right remanded to the states in COTUS and claimed in the Texas Constitution, then we can build our own nation free from interference from the Potomac, making our own decisions on how to govern. Forgive the 80’s film reference, but the only way to win at the federal power game is not to play.

– Ryan Thorson

The Unmaking of Milo

I wanted to say a few things about Milo. I feel like I’m giving a eulogy, but I’ll try not to be too dramatic.

By now, many of you have heard about Milo Yiannopoulos, if only by the reports of his stated support of pederasty and his subsequent infamy. Well, I first started taking note of Milo a few years ago. I thought he had eloquence and I appreciated his affirmation of the worth of men, a class that seems the scapegoat for nearly everything. Of course I found his snarky irreverence entertaining, but I really thought he had some important things to say.

I started to sour in him during the election. No, it’s not just that he supported Trump. He lost his righteous veneer. He began to say things that I knew were not true, and more to the point, that he knew were not true. He lost his way somewhere, and the aim of his snark became less about being politically incorrect and promoting free speech than cruelty for its own sake. His support for the racial supremacist alt-right movement led him down paths that I couldn’t follow.

Then came the comments, which I will not quote here. Milo struck back to mitigate damages as well as he could, blaming conspiracy or his own sense of irreverent gay humor, but to no avail. Now, as CPAC carries on without him, as his book deal is relegated to the dust bin, as he stands abandoned and bereft of occupation, I can’t help but feel a little pity. Sure, what he said was horrible, and I completely reject it, even so, the situation is pitiable.

While some look to blame a cabal of anti-Trumpists and leftists, it’s important to recognize that he and his comments are responsible for his unmaking, no one else. He wasn’t taken out of context or deceptively edited. He said what he said. Whether this view came from some damaged part of his psyche related to his molestation or something else, he said it. He crossed one of the few remaining traditional lines we have in society, and thank God it’s still there. He needs to own that.

I really hope Milo gets help and comes to terms with his prior molestation, starting with admitting that he WAS molested. I certainly don’t want to hear of him, years from now, that he acted out as he had been treated. And I don’t know what one does after making oneself such a pariah, but I hope he learns and recovers. But for those of his audience that he hadn’t already lost with his appropriation of the alt-right, he’s likely to lose much of what’s left.

Milo can either take this as his rock-bottom moment of clear, a time to reevaluate his life and make changes, or he can bloody his hands digging further into the stone. I hope he chooses the former.

– Ryan Thorson

North Carolina May be Taking a Step Towards Independence

Photo attribution: By User:Zscout370 – File:Flag of North Carolina.svg, Public Domain,

Here’s my latest article published in the Texian Partisan!


North Carolina has a history of chaffing under its federal yoke. Those of us in Texas definitely know what they’re concerned with, such as the disrespect Washington shows for our democratic/republican process; the way it inserts itself into our lives, even in the most mundane areas; and the way it tries to shape our values against our will. Well, NC might be making a move to solve their problems with the federal bureaucracy, and permanently. North Carolina is considering re-legalizing secession in their state.


Many are under the impression that Lincoln winning the Civil War, a conflict that NC found itself on the losing side, ended any question of secession. However, this is not any more accurate than it is in a hypothetical case of a local sheriff appropriating someone’s house under false pretenses. His residing there owes more to his title and the gun on his hip than to any legal or moral authority that he may have.


The supreme law of US is the Constitution, and it assigns only limited authority to the federal government, outlining certain enumerated powers that are its alone. To punctuate this limitation we have the tenth amendment, which states that the “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Just in case there are any politicians reading this, I will simplify it. If the Constitution doesn’t explicitly give the federal government a power over the states, it doesn’t have it. Also, if the Constitution doesn’t explicitly forbid the states a power, then the states or the individual citizenry retain that power; this would include the power to leave the Union. Seems simple, right? Well it is, the logically/legally tortured Supreme Court decision, Texas v. White, notwithstanding. And even though politicians and judges have built careers on implementing or mitigating unconstitutional DC actions, that only means the law is being ignored, not that their actions are justified.


There is only one way for secession to be legally eliminated as an option for the people of any state, and that’s if they themselves give it up. This could come in a form of a ratified COTUS amendment or, as North Carolina has done, in a state constitutional restriction of that power. However, there seems to be enough discontent with the overreach of the federal government that the state is possibly rethinking the wisdom of such a decision.


According to an article from The News & Observer, Republicans (George Cleveland, Larry Pittman, and Michael Speciale) in NC’s House of Representatives proposed a bill to create a 2018 referendum that, if passed, would remove Article I sec. 4 of their state Constitution that says, “This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State.” This, combined with a few other planned tweaks to the CONC, would clear the only obstacle to NC leaving the Union and reclaiming her own independence.


A growing amount of states and citizens are now seriously considering full or partial independence measures. With such a trend, you’d think that the US government would be more motivated to make substantial reforms of federal power, but this is not the case. In fact, it is not altogether certain that such necessary changes to preserve freedom and avert the Union’s demise through fiscal mismanagement are even possible in its current sorry state. Even top-down invasive measures like Obamacare, far from being repealed already as was thought likely, the conversation has turned to how much of this unconstitutional law will the new Republican government retain.


As the US government seems locked-in to an authoritarian track, more and more states are realizing that their best option for preserving their freedom and economic solvency is independence. If North Carolina moves ahead with reviving the option of secession, for lack of true reform in DC, I guarantee that it won’t be the last.

The New Battle for the Alamo

Here’s my next article for the Texian Partisan!

Beginning last Saturday, the Alamo once again became a battleground when members of the TNM Alamo Guard were prevented by the Alamo Complex Management from conducting their monthly memorial for the martyrs of the Texas Revolution.

For nearly four years, the Texas Nationalist Movement had been publicly remembering the Alamo in the form of a non-political and silent march to the Alamo door to lay a wreath of yellow roses. Besides being a tribute to the fallen heroes of Texas, the event was meant to spark cultural awareness in fellow Texans. However, on February 11, the TNM Alamo Guard was halted in the commencement of their monthly ritual by the Alamo Rangers, officials charged with the protection of the Alamo. Reluctantly and regrettably, they informed the Guard that they would no longer be allowed to continue this tradition.

“It felt like I’d been punched in the stomach,” said Chris Jacka, US Army veteran and Captain of the Alamo Guard. “It was so unexpected. I never thought that anything like that would ever happen, that it would be shut down in such a way.” Indeed, this action was quite a shock. Until that moment, the event had become a welcome fixture at the Alamo. Originally, the wreath was placed on public property in the plaza, however, it was the Alamo Rangers themselves that saw the benefit of such a ceremony and obtained special permission for the wreath to be placed instead at the chapel door.  And until last Saturday, there it remained. However, in changing this, there was no attempt to inform TNM beforehand, and this reversal seemed a baffling surprise for Texans who thought their service was wanted.

The reasons for this action have not yet been formally stated. However, the Chief Operating Officer, Ian Oldaker, a newly hired official and New York native, seems to have been the one issuing the order. The Texian Partisan has tried reaching out to Mr. Oldaker for comment, but he has not yet returned our contact.

According to sources, management had been doing away with many uses of the Alamo, such as weddings and personal affairs, with aims at the preservation of the historical site. Additionally, they’ve been rejecting its use in political demonstrations, including the request of an unnamed pro-Trump organization that wanted to have a rally at the Alamo. Unhappy that their request had been rejected, the pro-Trump org complained that their refusal was unfair due to the on-going allowance of the Alamo Guard’s memorial. As stated before, the AG’s observance was not political, rather cultural. In fact, when interviewed, Chris Jacka pointed out that in the interest clarifying that they had no political message, as well as wanting to foster good relations with Alamo management, the group acquiesced to the Alamo Ranger’s request last month that they not carry their TNM flag while performing their ceremony. Unfortunately, this was not enough. And contrary to the reported wishes of the Alamo Rangers and following the complaints of the fore-mentioned political group, the following month, Mr. Oldaker went ahead with shutting down the observance.

Since that Saturday, there have been many developments. The Texas Nationalist Movement released a statement and call-to-action concerning the event on their website. Afterwards, the story began circulating in social media. The word was getting out. Ultimately, few days later, TNM President Daniel Miller received a phone call from the Alamo COO. Apparently, management had been inundated by a great number of calls from Texans, including some Texas lawmakers, who all expressed their disapproval with dis-inviting the Alamo Guard. In short, Alamo management informed Mr. Miller that they were reversing their decision in forbidding the monthly memorial service. However, the exact details of this arrangement have yet to be worked out as of writing this.

While many applaud that the situation seems to be reaching a satisfactory resolution, it really is a shame that it happened in the first place. It could have been easily avoided had management taken the initiative to reach out to TNM before last Saturday. However, not all blame rests with the Mr. Oldaker. The incident with the Alamo Guard is only the latest issue involving the custodianship of the Alamo, and its roots go back a few years.

Originally, the responsibility of caring for the Alamo belonged to the Daughters of the Republic of Texas. However, after accusations of mismanagement, the state of Texas wrested control of the Alamo from the DRT, the group without which the Alamo would have long ago been reduced to rubble. Though the DRT fought the action, ultimately the Alamo was put under the stewardship of the General Land Office and its commissioner, George P. Bush, who would also come to serve as the chair for the Alamo Endowment.

The Texas GLO take-over of the historic site, which addressed arguably legitimate concerns, was unfortunately not the end of this story. Next came the application and subsequent July 2015 approval of UNESCO “world heritage site” status for the Alamo. The move was supported by prominent politicians, like Bush, but opposed by other GOP Texans who, according to a report in the Guardian, were concerned with possible ramifications associated with “granting jurisdiction and sovereignty over Texas’ cultural sites to any international body”. Rightly so, because with accepting the cooperation of the United Nations comes the strings of the UN. Additionally, the law, as written, leaves the door open to taking what amounts to holy ground for Texans and putting it under the control of the federal government, a legal entity that has shown increasingly that is at best indifferent to the concerns of Texans, and at worst at odds with them.

Inherent in the dangers of outside control of the Alamo is the risk that the presentation of the Alamo’s story could be perverted. There have been rumors of political interests trying to seize control of the Alamo narrative to reflect a more politically-correct view. Instead of the story of Texian revolutionaries resisting the tyranny of a Mexican dictator and his suspension of the rights of all Mexican citizens living in Texas, it could easily become the sympathetic story of General Antonio López de Santa Anna, tragically failing in defending his country from usurpers and interlopers. In fact, it may go as far as to depict the Texas Revolution as racial war between Anglos and Latinos. Such revisions of history are not unheard of, despite such a premise ignoring the thousands of Tejanos who fought for Texas independence against Mexico, men like the revolutionary hero Juan Seguin or the Texian founding father José Antonio Navarro. Without pro-Texas management, the cradle of Texas independence could become just another prop for racial/political agitation.

For those that think such a thing could never happen, it is important to note that this sort of naked racial politics has already occurred with the UN. Recently, UNESCO was involved in another controversy, this time regarding holy sites in Israel. According to a report from FoxNews, UNESCO was criticized by the Israeli government for crafting a document that “denies Judaism’s deep ties to” the temple mount, while affirming Islamic ties. To have that same sort of political framing to the story of the Alamo would be divisive for Texans, grossly misleading, and distracting from the important lessons that the Alamo represents: selfless service and defiance of governmental tyranny.

For now, the key consideration of the Alamo Guard being allowed to render honors to Travis, Bowie, Crockett, and the other noble Texian forebears may be addressed, but the problem of this most sacred of Texas sites losing its control to foreign powers, whether Washington or the UN, that struggle is just beginning. Hopefully what began with the Alamo Guard, enough concerned Texans speaking out and getting the powers-that-be to back down from their ill-conceived decisions, perhaps that can continue, rousing law makers in Austin to recognize the dangers of yielding Texan shrines to outside authorities. Then, maybe the legislature will abandon similar future plans for Texas historical sites and take action against existing myopic laws, safeguarding the sacred heritage of Texas for future generations.