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.

Advertisements

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

The New Battle for the Alamo

Here’s my next article for the Texian Partisan!

https://texianpartisan.com/the-new-battle-for-the-alamo/

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.

Streep Fighter vs The Twitter Warrior

Did anyone catch Meryl Streep’s speech last night? Donald Trump certainly did! His tweeted response was typical Trump fair: attack them personally, link them to your political opponent, deny the charges, remind the audience that Trump is a winner, attack the media, etc. Well, without unpacking Streep’s whole speech, here are a few thoughts on it. ‪
It was enevitable that the left, and its propaganda arm in Hollywood, was going to find something not to like in a Republican President. This would have been the case whether the occupant was the walking faux-pas that is Trump or the less flawed Marco Rubio. That being said, it is disingenuous, bordering on the ridiculous, for Trump to pretend that Streep had no point. Trump did poke a little fun at a certain reporter’s disability. He told his rally audience, “You gotta see this guy,” and then begin flailing his arms around in mockery of this person’s particular affliction. Hey, he can do that if he wants to; he’s breaking no law! If Trump wants to establish new heights for the avant-garde of sticking-it-to-the-establishment by bucking their stupid rules about not attacking weaker people, he can. Seems a silly crusade, but ok. However, he shouldn’t lie about it, especially when the reality is so obvious to anybody with access to YouTube. Also, the PEOTUS shouldn’t be surprised if a lot of people, even Hollywood types, find his particular form communication troubling. If Donald is a little ashamed or embarrassed by what he did, he should try apologizing. However, at least be man about it.

As for Streep’s other concerns, not everything was objectionable, at least on its face. Besides her plea for civility from those in power, she called for the need of a “principled press” to hold power to account while making an authority appeal to the Constitution. What’s to disagree with? The President does need to be accountable to the Constitution, and held to account by a watchdog press (lately playing Obama’s lapdog). Assuming I disagreed, don’t even vapid liberal actors, who are as far removed from regular people as Michael Moore is from a salad, have just as much right to use their particular platform to advocate for their beliefs as anyone else does?

There is one issue, however, regarding the Golden Globes editorial that deserves addressing: consistency. I must have missed the time that Ms. Streep showed concern for the Constitution and an independent press when Barack Obama was ruling through executive fiat and having his Justice Department conduct raids on reporters who were investigating his administrations various scandals. For some reason, that didn’t seem to bother Meryl, or at least she didn’t use her fame then to criticize the President on some of the more troubling abuses of his authority. Don’t misunderstand me. It’s nice to hear from all these born-again federalists! Welcome to the party! However, it is noteworthy that when a more favorable tyranny was being perpetrated by one from her own political persuasion, Streep saw fit to not speak out.

There are many areas that Donald Trump is and will be deserving of critique. Certainly, Streep’s performance was only one of many salvos yet to come from the S.S. Tinseltown. Yet, until Streep and her class of actors-cum-political gurus address and apologize for 8 years of turning a blind eye to the violation of the principles they now seem to have whole-heartedly embraced, they’ll have zero credibility. Their criticisms will fall on deaf ears, persuading no one that doesn’t already agree. Good thing for her, credibility or persuasion isn’t what Streep’s after, nor Martin Sheen, nor any number of celebrities that have been popping up to do insipid and homogeneous political ads. Rather, what they want is to signal to their pals, other vapid Hollywood actors, to say “Look at me! I’m a good person!” Well, to that I’d say, “Mission accomplished!” Be satisfied, because you’ll have little else. I still loved Streep in Julie & Julia, however!

-Ryan Thorson
**UPDATE***

New info has come to my attention that Trump wasn’t mocking the aforementioned man’s disability. Though the video on its own with Trump’s words seemed pretty clear, I have to admit that this time I got it wrong.

Chicago Hate: Crime, Racial Prejudice, and the Media.

Breaking last night, was the story of four Chicago residents that had been arrested for kidnapping another Chicago-area man with mental disabilities. They forced this man to drink from the toilet, bound him, beat and kicked him, cut the clothes from his body, and assaulted him with a knife, drawing blood. And since our society has undergone a shame-ectomy, all of this was done live on Facebook. In viewing the video, it becomes clear by the choice of insults used by the perpetrators that this crime was racially and politically motivated. The victim has been reported recovering in a hospital, and the perpetrators have been charged with committing hate-crimes as well as other charges. “Tragic,” you might say. “I hope they receive the fullest punishment that the law can provide.” Correct. They should. However, there is a component to this story that has some in the main stream media a bit perplexed on how to handle it. The peculiar part of this story is that the perpetrators were black and their victim was white, and they carried out their attacks saying, “F**k Donald Trump. F**k white people.”

Since hate-crime legislation started being enacted, it has not been unknown to find examples of criminal behavior that meet the definition of a hate-crime and yet are perpetrated on whites. A simple search on YouTube will yield numerous videos of white people being attacked by groups of non-whites, beating them, and hurling racial epithets at them. For instance, also in Chicago, in a recent post-election attack, a middle-aged white man was pulled from his car and beaten for stated racial and political motives. However, it’s not often you hear of hate-crimes charges being filed in such cases where the victim is white. Until recently, the reason for the charges in the Chicago case hadn’t even been fully specified. Earlier reports indicated that the Chicago Police incredulously maintained that the attack wasn’t racially motivated, but because of the victim’s mentally disability. This, even though the perpetrators were shown cutting at this man and saying, “F**k white people,” on the aforementioned video. That evidence would seem pretty cut and dry, to most people. It’s not like they said, “F**k the disabled,” is it? However, according to this afternoon’s CPD press conference on this case, they made clear that the racial component of this crime received equal consideration in the decision to file hate-crime charges. I’m glad they were clear on this point. It would be a horrible message to send that the crime in this was in selecting a victim from the protected list, “but feel free to target competent whites!”

The way the media has been reporting this story has been has a bit of a mixed bag. Some articles and TV stories have reported this on the merits, while others have not. Few want to justify it, though some have. Some have even gone the extra step of blaming Donald Trump in some capacity. Particularly egregious was the way CNN’s Don Lemon approached it. While one of his panel called the attack “evil,” Lemon himself refused to categorize it as such, saying, “I don’t think it’s evil. I don’t think it’s evil. I think these are young people, and I think they have bad home training.” Certainly Mr. Lemon is entitled to his strange opinion. However, if this act didn’t make his cut, one should wonder at what Lemon’s definition of evil is.

Don Lemon is just one example of the gentle consideration that media gives when dealing with crimes perpetrated by non-whites. For instance, the media has a reputation for often omitting the ethnicity of the perpetrator in reporting crimes committed by minorities, while at the same time rarely flinching from exposing the background of a white assailant. As to why they do it is speculative, but I’d wager it probably comes from a mixture of varied left-wing opinions, such as reporters generally have penchant for. These beliefs could include the unique culpability of whites for historic injustices (including racial disparities in U.S. prisons), the patronizing belief that racial minorities should be coddled and held to low expectations for civilized behavior because of historic injustice and cultural relativism, and the belief that whites will retaliate against innocent minorities if they report the racial make-up of said perpetrators. If this is what they believe, the sensible thing would be to just omit the ethnicity of all suspects, but that’s not always the case. It is curious, however, how fears of racial prejudice lead to actual racial prejudice.

The Chicago attack and like attacks should give us pause before we continue business as usual, employing the same failed solutions championed by our politically correct culture. If the goal is to reduce or eliminate racial prejudice, then perhaps we should de-emphasize race. No one should be automatically considered in the victim class or the oppressor class. We all should be on the protected list, or none of us should be. One thing we might consider is dropping this whole ridiculous notion of hate crimes. Those kidnappers from Chicago committed crimes against a weaker guy, and that’s all that should matter. I don’t care if they hated this man personally or if they just hated whatever group they saw him representing; such as white, disabled, or a Trump supporter. I only care that they committed a crime. If the races were reversed, to me it would matter just as much. This should be the case with the law, the media, and society. It isn’t, though. Justice, far from being blind, seeks to favor ideological bias over the evidence or law. It’s time we start insisting that our society stop showing any favoritism on a racial basis. At some point, people must be responsible for their own actions, alone. Pretending otherwise leads to crimes like what happened to this man in Chicago. If we keep trying to play this game of favorites, we aren’t going to have a society much longer. For if we can’t agree that such actions are “evil,” what can we agree on?

 

– Ryan Thorson

 

One More Lecture From Monsignor Obama: Trumpies and Russians and Hackers, OH MY!

Today, we received another preachy press conference (thank heaven there’s not many more of these!) from outgoing POTUS Barack Obama. His focus was, of course, the current assement that Russian hacking was intended to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump.

The Russian hacking situation is bad, and everyone should be concerned, but besides saying “Knock it off!” what did Obama do about it? Last time I checked, Obama’s still President, but his standard operating procedure seems to be talk as if somebody else is. While speaking on what few positive accomplishments happened during his administration as if he personally took charge of every aspect, he likewise seemed to act like none of the negative aspects were ever his fault; he found out about every disaster first through the news and he condemns each scandal from his administration like he’s a critical outside voice standing in judgement rather than the guy running the show! The positive side of this is that his retirement should be an easy rhetorical adjustment.

He’s right that the hacking situation is disturbing, but the hack of a political party is not the same as a hack of the government nor the same as an attempt to stuff ballots. Also, in addition to Obama not taking decisive action when the hacking occurred and culprit identified, he wasn’t so “prime-directive” when he sent money and personnel to try to unseat Israeli PM Netanyahu, nor when he attempted to influence the Brexit with threats against trade relations, nor other attempts to influence elections in Canada & South America.  Additionally, and more to the point, Obama didn’t seem in the slightest concerned with the millions in foreign donations that found their way into HRC’s war chest in an attempt to influence both candidate and election!

Although I’m not too hopeful for anything substantially good out of the Trump administration, I am very much looking forward to the end of the sanctimonious Obama administration. He talked a good game, but in the end, he diminished the USA, drove up the debt and unemployment, drove people further apart, a left a world on fire. I don’t have the stomach to hear him any longer. I can’t wait till these hypocrites are gone, and we have, at least, fresher and newer hypocrites!

– Ryan Thorson