The Houston Chronicle Goes on the Record about Texit, and I respond.

Recently, the Houston Chronicle decided to post an article dealing with one of my pieces regarding Texas independence. You can read that in the link ( They didn’t quite get things right. Also, their regular respondents attempted to malign the character of those who believe in Texas Independence, and substitute the actual arguments raised with the grotesque straw-men of their own imagination. So, I decided to respond on their site in five segments. Here’s the entire response.

I would like to thank the Chronicle for highlighting the views of many concerned Texans. I’m very pleased they took notice of my article, however I would like to address a few things.

First, let me assure those that may be confused, the Texas Nationalist Movement (TNM) is not calling for a place on the POTUS debate stage. If you read the ORIGINAL article, you’ll find that I was just marveling at how it only takes 15% interest to get such a national platform, but an issue like independence, that has greater support, tends to be ignored. I hope that clears things up.

Additionally, I’d like to take issue with the Reuters quote at the end of the article that seemed to downplay the number of Americans committed to Independence. Frankly, to describe 1/4 of the US or 1/3 of the Southwest states as “‘tiny'” is absurd. Elections tip on such numbers. Here in Texas, the number in favor of independence is stronger. Additionally, TNM has collected over 300,000 pledges to vote for independence when Austin gives us a referendum. With that many who are openly committed, experience suggests that this number represents many more who have not been quite so vocal. If given a chance at the ballot box, I’m confident that Texit would win the day, much as Brexit led the way of liberation to the U.K. from their own intractable bureaucracy.

I’d also like to address some of the concerns of your readers.  Members of TNM are Texans of many races and beliefs. Many of us (like myself) are veterans, and we are all very patriotic Americans, perhaps even more than the average American. This because we are patriotic for the thing that matters most, not the soil or the government, but the founding rights & principles of the U.S. contained in the Constitution; nothing more radical than that! It was to protect the principles of natural rights that our founding fathers seceded from Great Britain, and to those principles we are committed. In fact, we at TNM are so thoroughly loyal to that idea of America that we refuse to part with even one of our blood-bought constitutional rights!

It’s easy to forget that USA was very different than any other Union formed in the world. Most countries were built on loyalties of race/ethnicity, and had traditions that included the divine right of kings.  Not so with our own system of limited government, where the individual is sovereign. In current times however, instead of having to contend with a British monarch for our rights, it is our own federal government (originally conceived to protect Liberty) that every day takes progressively away decisions that rightly belong in the hands of individual citizens and consolidates them in their own inept grip, whether or not the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) grants them such authority.

As you may know, Texas’ relationship to the federal government is contractual, and a contract is only as good as the honor of the parties involved. If you were in a marriage where your spouse continually abused you and cheated on you, all while spending the money you had laid aside for your children, it is doubtful that a reasonable person would say to you, “Too bad! You have to stay married!” Certainly the founders didn’t believe this, and the 10th amendment of the Constitution reserves all power not given the federal government for States, including the power the leave the union. Furthermore, Article 1 of the Texas Constitution recognizes the inalienable right of the people “to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.” It also asserts that the “perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.” No one can honestly say that this condition of unimpaired local self-government still exists. Every day, the federal government finds new ways to insert itself into local affairs.

Now, if you are unconcerned with Washington’s unconstitutional assumption of powers that are supposed to be reserved for the states and the people, if you are un-phased by unending deficit spending, and if you are happy to see federal courts overruling Texas law with only their own biases to serve as guidance, I don’t suppose anything I say will change your mind. But if these things do concern you, then consider this: decades of work by honest Americans to change this course have at the best only slowed the rise of authoritarianism and the profligate spending of Washington. If you want to retain your rights of speech, religion, or to bear arms, then peaceful legal independence is the only way. If we would preserve our values and keep from sliding into the economic abyss, then we’ll have to go it alone. However, here’s the advantage! Overnight, all of that abuse and corruption would be gone! Texans would be free to form their own responsible government, making sure not to repeat the mistakes of the United States, while preserving its best principles for future generations. And while there can be no guarantees of Utopia, I am confident that Texans know better how to run Texas than a multitude of politicians and bureaucrats more than a thousand miles away.

It should be clear by now that we can’t save the United States. However, through regained self-determination, we might just be able to save Texas. The alternative is to accept the current state of affairs, which, make no mistake, are existential: the continuing loss of Liberty and the economic ruin that must come from a government that CAN’T stop spending money it doesn’t have. There are moments when the right choice is obvious, and this is one of them. I’m with Texas!

Ryan Thorson


Original Article:

TNM: FAQ page:

Pledge your vote for independence:




Trump Vs. Clinton, Round 1: More Tedious than Titanic.

So, the moment we were all waiting for! The big show! Monster versus monster, in an epic throw-down between two of the most dreadful candidates ever nominated… Or was it? Not being in favor of either of these contenders, though perhaps being slightly more against Hillary (we have a longer history of enmity), I didn’t feel that I had a dog in this fight. However, I was looking forward to an epic clash, hoping to at least see a good show and momentarily forget that one of these horrors will afterwards end up leading the country! This was supposed to be the one joy I was to going to get out of the remainder of this election, watching Trumpzilla and Mecha-Hillary savage each other for 90 minutes! “Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war.” Unfortunately, it was hopelessly anticlimactic and very disappointing. How could this be? All of the drama of the campaign was building to this point! This was THE moment that a candidate like Trump was chosen for, but in the end it was a huge let-down.

TrumpensteinTrump came out strong, at first. Trying to take charge and even slyly doing his thing where he shows disrespect by being respectful. Hillary initially fumbled, trying out a few pet names for Trump policy and failing miserably. She really ought to leave the name-calling to Trump; she doesn’t do it with the same panache. Don’t get me wrong, Donald wasn’t really winning on substance. Trump was using his usual shtick of saying anything he needed to, if he thought it would help him, leaving the voters to sort through and decide which parts he meant and which ones he didn’t.  His answers were often confused and often off-topic, but at least in style, this served him well. However, things quickly went downhill.

Donald let Hillary get away with calling him out on the birther issue without retorting that it was originally the Hillary camp that aired this conspiracy theory during her previous failed bid for the Democrat nomination. This was a clear error. Also, his actual defense against this came off as very weak. And as if this wasn’t bad enough, Trump didn’t know where to quit on the e-mail issue. He had a chance to address her challenge about releasing his tax returns with a curt retort asking when she was going to release the 30,000 e-mails she deleted from her illegal private server. Instead, he ruined an otherwise excellent opportunity to leave his audience wanting more by ineffectively going on and on about it, pitiably adding how much his lawyers advised him that he doesn’t need to release his tax returns. This is where things really started to turn against the Donald.

After this, Hillary started to get her pace. She was even able to let Trump make the case for her, tacking onto Trump’s boorish quip with her own version of “There you go again.” And Trump, as if trying to assist Hillary, started talking about the areas where they agreed, clearly trying to appeal to his own tribe of liberals. At one point, Trump endorsed the “no-fly, no-buy” proposal, an unconstitutional abridgement of the second amendment! Although he’s been in favor of U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton gestures from the stage at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denverthis for a while, never before has this particular position received this kind of public airing. It is likely to cost with his base. Even his interrupting himself on this topic to remind the audience of his NRA endorsement will probably do nothing to help him mitigate the damages.

Most excruciating of all, at least for those of us who tried to reason with the Trump crowd during the primary that this was likely to happen should Donald become the nominee, Hillary laid into Trump on his bad record with women and race! Donald could not properly parry this. He was so much on defense that he wasn’t able to strike back effectively. Even his well-worn claim of how his opponent was “unfair” couldn’t save him. Trump ridiculously commented on how nasty Hillary had been to him in ads and so forth, and how he was going to hit her back by saying something nasty as well. Mercifully, he thought better of it, but made sure to let us all know that he held himself back! Who is Trump getting his debate advice from? Mike Huckabee? Pathetic.

Although Hillary presented like an automaton, I have to agree that she came off much better than Trump in this debate and is likely to get a small bounce in the polls. Trump came of as rambling, uninformed, and weak, not at all like he’d prefer to be seen: the alpha male. Hillary appeared prepared and with a working knowledge of the issues, while Trump appeared underprepared and was ill-served by his usually effective off-the-cuff extemporaneousness. Though not a KO (more like a TKO), It’s clear that Hillary won this one. Too bad. I was so much looking forward to something more decisive, dramatic, and entertaining; I had little else to look forward to with a binary choice of essentially two Democrats. However, I was even denied even this! And to think, the GOP nominee could have been Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, someone who understands the issues and could have really sunk the knife into her highness! Instead, what we ended up with was a candidate who shows himself to be, in almost every way, out of his depth. I think that this race is once again Hillary’s to lose. The Trumpster will fight again, but this time he woefully underestimated his opponent, and I’m not sure that he has it in him to turn this thing around.

– Ryan Thorson

Ted Cruz Unbowed

Last night, Ted Cruz gave his big speech at the GOP convention. This was highly anticipated and highly controversial. The sequence of events that led to it began with Trump warning that Cruz would not be allowed a speaking slot unless he first kissed Trump’s gilded ring. Cruz shrugged it off with indifference. Perhaps being a little concerned with party unity, Trump eventually caved and asked Cruz to speak, not dictating that he also endorse. Cruz accepted. Since then, the talk among pundits and Trump surrogates was about whether or not Cruz would or should endorse Donald, with some even questioning Cruz’s party loyalty and manhood, should he choose not to. When the time for the speech came, for the first two thirds, it was extremely well received. In it, he buttressed the substance of what Conservatives believe, where up until now had been mostly lacking at the Cleveland convention. He hit all the points that Republicans have expressed care for, such as freedom and limited government, and it even included a touching anecdote about the daughter of one of the slain officers of Dallas which bookended his remarks. At many points he received enormous applause for his well-spoken monologue. However, when he arrived at the part where he urged all voters and particularly his supporters to refrain from staying home in November, a theme that should be appreciable by any Trump supporter, the mood of the throng began to change. Cruz exhorted them to vote for, “up and down the ballot”, candidates that support the Constitution… at this, a sizable portion of his audience started booing, which was followed by chants demanding Cruz endorse Trump. The raucous noise continued to the end of his speech.

No. Cruz did not endorse Trump, a point of consternation for the Trump cult, and embarrassing to the other GOP regulars who had already done so, if only begrudgingly. Cruz was not, however, openly critical of Trump, even congratulating him on his nomination. For me, I think perhaps Ted was even too kind to this man that threw every bit of slime that he could at him during the primary, including attacking his wife and accusing his father of being complicit in the JFK assassination. If the reception of Cruz’s otherwise innocuous remarks weren’t obvious enough, then let me be plain, Donald Trump and his most ignorant supporters don’t deserve Cruz’s endorsement. Their booing him when he spoke of conscience and Constitution merely punctuates how bereft they are of principle, derelict in a sea of ignorance. Nonetheless, if Trump wanted Cruz’s endorsement, I believe he could have had it. Together with extending common decency, something Trump is loath to bestow on an opponent, all he had to do is affirm his own loyalty to the Constitution and Liberty. The fact that he couldn’t do this should be a concern to all freedom loving Americans. Yet, this is not even the main concern. Cruz’s speech was an embarrassment to Trump, not because it lacked endorsement, but because it was a glaring demonstration that Ted is and was true to the very principles that Donald Trump only occasionally pretends to believe in. Ted may now be playing the role of the weeping prophet, telling a dissolute people that which they would rather not hear, but his words were nonetheless potent, and true. His presence was a reminder of what could have been. Imagine. We might have had this competent, resolute principled, ethical, and gifted candidate as our nominee to cast a stark contrast to the corruption and avarice that is Clinton. Instead, what we ended up with as head of our party is a glitzy humbug, unconvincing in his assertions of conviction and plagued by his own numerous ethical scandals.

If recent reports are true, those of Trump offering the presidency in all but name to would-be VP Kasich with Trump merely retaining the POTUS title and all self-honoring duties, then there may be a good shot that Mike Pence, the nominated VP, will be the real President in the event of a Trump victory. That sort of rationale might be enough for some Conservatives to ultimately, with great pangs of conscience, pull the lever for Trump and against Hillary, but last night’s speech made something very clear. Trump may be the current head of the national Republican Party, but Cruz is its future. Trump may hold the reigns of GOP power and its errant heart, but Ted Cruz, unbowed and undaunted, holds its soul.


– Ryan Thorson


White Privilege and Me


While wasting some time on Twitter, as I’ve been known to do from time to time, a certain linked article caught my eye. It was the work of a black female author who calls herself LaSha, and it seemed to be a schadenfreude piece regarding some American men who found misfortune abroad. * The first, mentioned briefly, was Michael Fay. You may remember Mr. Fay from the early 90s as the American who decided to commit an act of petty vandalism while in Singapore, and who subsequently received a caning for his efforts, courtesy of the Singapore government. * The second mentioned, and primary focus was Otto Warmbier, who after an even smaller act of unsanctioned souvenir procurement found himself sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in North Korea. * Now, setting aside for the moment the judicial wisdom (or lack thereof) featured in authoritarian regimes, there are a few conclusions that one could make as to why these youths behaved the way they did. First, there’s the ugly American trope that’s been the bane of American tourists for decades. You probably know what I’m talking about, that rude “Out of my way! I’m an American!” attitude that is sometimes displayed by Americans sightseers. Second, you could attribute their societal sin to being spoiled rich kids, undisciplined and corrupted by the air of wealth. Third, you could chalk it all up to transgressivism, stupid youthful hijinks, which is a trait common among those too young to possess fully formed frontal lobes that, especially with the buttressing effect of proper moral training, would have otherwise warned them of the ill-wisdom of their hasty choices. Most reasonable people could agree, while perhaps sharing a small amount of pity for the harsh sentences that accompanies such indiscretion, these men should have known better than to behave the way they did, especially when visiting police states. However, while similarly believing that these young men acted in an improper manner, the author identified another culprit behind their decision to behave poorly, one altogether different than I or most rational people would conclude. And Instead of being able to ally with the author in an otherwise cautionary tale about avoiding arrogant and reckless behavior, I found myself lumped in with the condemned. You see, in the author’s mind, we were and are the beneficiaries of hundreds of years of carefully crafted societal benevolence bestowed solely on the basis of our skin being a pallid pigment. That’s right! White privilege was the real offense. And despite her declarations to the contrary, it became clear that she found a certain satisfaction in the suffering of these white men, as if their punishment took on a larger significance, the scourging of the image of an imagined pale-faced persecutor. It was very clear that she saw herself, a black woman, as oppressed by American white society, and now Otto was going to experience some of that oppression. Adding her blessing to that sentence, her article’s title declared to him that You Gon Learn Today. * This is not a topic that I’ve fully addressed before. However, because I was disturbed by the animus that the author seemed to hold for white people and a world where (as she put it) one is pedestaled “simply because your DNA coding produced the favorable phenotype,” * I felt obliged to address it. After all, this form of racial theory is growing in popularity, not only among non-white groups, but also among virtue-signaling whites that hold with the dogmata of political correctness. What is white privilege, and what are its implications and obligations to those thought to possess it? The following is my impressions and thoughts on this philosophy.

Those of you that paid attention to the meteoric rise of University campus progressivism might be familiar with the term white privilege, a political phrase that has gained popularity in recent years, among such august company as micro aggression, cultural appropriation, cisgender, and mansplaining. According to Wikipedia, white privilege “(or white skin privilege) is a term for societal privileges that benefit people identified as white in Western countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.” ** Basically, what this means is if you are white, automatically you have a leg up on everyone else who isn’t. White privilege theory goes beyond the principle of racism. You could see yourself as the most volitionally un-racist person in the world, but if you are white, you must be enjoying ill-gotten gains and as such share guilt with any white person of the past who at any point subjugated a non-white. Implicit (if not explicit) with those that promote this philosophy is the imperative that people with such privilege give it up in deference to a non-white. Derrick Clifton, .Mic commentator, in his article 7 Ways White People Can Combat Their Privilege, had this to say, “It’s important for everyone to begin thinking and behaving in ways that relinquish white privilege and white supremacy when it noticeably impacts daily life. Because it’s not about admitting it anymore. It’s about giving it up.” *** However, if white privilege is something that I must personally combat, the how is fraught with difficulties for me. As a white man married to a black woman with a bi-racial child on the way, what am I to do? And what of my child, will they have partial white privilege from which they will benefit or for which they must atone?

Before I get too far into this, let me agree that on some level, white privilege exists. Yet, when I say it exists, I don’t mean like those who promote it as the invisible hand, a malevolent phantom force on which a person of color can blame all their woes, but in the sense that people who have lighter skin color have historically had an easier life than those not in the majority population, if only in small ways. The same, to varying degrees, could be said of other majority populations in other countries, such as the Chinese in China, Indians in India, or Arabs in Saudi Arabia. If you are to live in those countries, you will have an easier time being of the majority population, if for no other reason than that you won’t stand out for looking different. However, that can change quickly, depending on which side of the country you’re on.  Afterwards, your other attributes determine your order on the privilege ladder. Much like a flock of gulls that attack their identical brethren for acquiring a soda can ring around its neck, all human peoples are adept at sizing up and segregating individuals, even among their own tribes, for the most miniscule of differences. However, in examining white privilege, it must be understood that it is not universal, and can exclude great numbers of people from such birthright privilege, questioning the accuracy of its name. Certainly, when one considers Irish indentured servitude, Italian ghettos, or German internment camps, a concept such as white privilege may seem very limited indeed. But one must admit that white skinned peoples were not the victims of slavery, westward expansion, or Jim Crow, which were terrible crimes perpetrated in legal and cultural realms. Even today, there remain people who remember life in a segregated society. These unjust states, though long gone, have left their mark. In consideration of these, it is conceivable to argue that in the attitudes or cultural norms, some vestigial privilege still exists, apart from other considerations such as economics. Nevertheless, I would argue that those privileges would have to be very minor in order to be universally applicable to all whites, from the poorest to the richest. And for whites born after Jim Crow and raised to not believe in racialism, such privilege would seem a foreign thing. Having said that, what can or should be done about it? One can learn from the sins of the past. One can redress the legal issues that may advantage one group over another, and certainly, we’ve had civil rights legislation making all races equal under the law for over fifty years. After the legal questions have been dealt with, one would assume the important work has been accomplished and the rest is left to the individual, in the moral choices they make and in the honor of the individuals they elect to dutifully execute the laws of our land. However, the proponents of the white privilege argument would say that this is not enough. They would claim that the government needs to insert itself, putting its thumb on the scale of justice in favor of minorities and against whites. If whites aren’t themselves willing to give up the benefits of their progenitors that must have created it on the backs of colored peoples, benefits that they may even be oblivious to, it is down to Big Brother to settle the score. In a phrase: legal systemic racism benefiting non-whites. This is exemplified in the recent Supreme Court ruling that allows for state-run universities to turn down more qualified white applicants in favor of darker skinned students in pursuit of a racial quota. **** Far different from the odd policeman or politician who might seem to show favoritism based on race, this is the highest court in the land saying that it is permissible to deny access to state-run institution solely based on the color of their skin! I thought we were beyond such base considerations. And amazingly, among supporters of such legal racial discrimination for the purpose of equalizing perceived racial imbalances, you’d be hard pressed to find any who can articulate a future end to such an arrangement, creating a sort of perpetual anti-privilege for whites, generations removed from injustices such as Jim Crow and slavery.  One might as well ask “How much longer until we’ve perfected the human heart?”

I have and always will reject the belief that a race can be inferior or superior to another. In my experience, race tells very little about a person, whereas culture, religion, family, and ultimately the deeds and words of the individual tell infinitely more about what sort of a person one is. Like many who care about moral discipline, I have generally behaved as a civil person, but I’m being told that despite my efforts and because of my skin color that I need to accept a permanent secondary status in the eyes of the state and in the culture. Such laws don’t make me feel privileged, and I guess that’s the point, though no one can tell me what sin I’ve personally committed that deserves such judgement. To punish someone for a wrong perceived to have been committed by an ancestor is antithetical to justice. Is it too much to ask that I be judged for my own actions rather than by those committed by people that look vaguely like me? Although, such a practice could streamline police work if all the cops had to do was to grab the nearest guy of the same race as the perp to appease the masses! “Sergeant! B&E on the West side, hook a white guy!” As it becomes more and more acceptable for people in the media to speak of white people in very hateful terms, while the slightest hint of bigotry against non-whites meets with the severest sanctions, it remains hard for me to envision the throne of privilege that I’m supposed to sit on. And when uttering the phrase “all lives matter,” instead of “black lives matter,” becomes controversial, ***** it would seem closer to the truth that I am disadvantaged by my race than the reverse. From where I stand, social-justice, under which these sorts of policies or beliefs are grouped, seems to be anti-justice for millions of white people of good will.

Ultimately, I am still a so-called white man, and in the eyes of some, my word is not considered legitimate in discussing such matters. In an effort to check my privilege, which is the popular phrase used to end discussion when a person of the wrong color forgets their place, I reached out to a friend of mine (and person of color) to get her take on white privilege. Patty Politics is where you’ll find her on YouTube and Twitter (I encourage everyone to take a look). Here’s what she had to say about it. “To me white privilege is like a rehashing of Christian concepts like ‘original sin’. Except instead of applying it to all humans, [social justice warriors] only apply it to people they perceive to be white. This is obviously racism, it applies stereotypes of someone’s life or thoughts based on their skin color, and it makes people hateful and resentful. I’ve rejected the concept of white privilege despite it not being normal for black people in my age, [who are] fairly college educated and learning about privilege in college for these specific reasons.  Privilege exists no matter who you are.  It’s impossible to escape a form of privilege. Having a bed is a privilege. But we cannot say that because someone is white, their bed MUST be better than others, when it’s possibly untrue.” I appreciate Patty drawing a parallel between religion and the concept of white privilege. So much of progressivism behaves like the blindest of faiths, and white privilege is no exception. The white transgressor is rebuked for their sin, being exhorted to confess and atone for it. This can be accomplished by professing adherence to the new faith, spreading its creeds, and giving deference to its prophets and chosen peoples. Under this arrangement, white people will be required to proclaim the sins of their forebears in verbal flagellation, while at the same time affirming the incorruptibility of non-white peoples of the same sin. As it’s often been said, people of color are incapable of racism, as they are not in power, ****** a belief ridiculous to any who can use a dictionary. The effect is purposed as a sort of cultural Marxism, with whites playing the role of the bourgeoisie and people of color as the ascending proletariat. They claim that this will make things equal, that this will free society. They are mistaken. Preaching against white privilege and the like has resulted in further dividing society along racial lines, and cementing that division with hatred. On one side, persons of color are taught to blame their problems on people wholly unconnected to them. Aggrieved, they give way to license which often takes the form of criminal and anti-social behavior. On the other side, whites, who are tired of being continually cast in the role of the villain by the media and educators, and chafing under discriminatory laws, also feel aggrieved. They are then easy prey for truly bigoted philosophies that tell them that they are going to be labeled racist anyway, and so they might as well act to preserve white society. And as perception of racial bias against whites continues to rise even as perceived racial bias against blacks is decreasing, as one Harvard study found, ******* racial divisions continue to deepen. One need only watch footage of Trump rallies to see the license that whites are giving themselves, such as sucker-punching a restrained protestor, flashing Nazi salutes, or violently shoving a black woman who was being no more than verbally disruptive. The cycle continues with following attacks on Trump supporters, and so on. The continuance of this philosophy will result in racial segregation at best and full-blown race riots at worst, scuttling the gains of MLK and the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

The problem with the theory of white privilege is that it gives one group of people permission to hate and blame problems both current and ancestral on another group who likely had nothing to do with it. It robs a person of their individuality and agency, it offers no real solutions, but it encourages hatred and bitterness. It’s hypocritical and destructive. Belief in such things does not bind peoples together, but tears them apart. It would be far better to fight injustice, irrespective of skin color, with one law for all, and cultural encouragement to reject bigotry in one’s personal life. Understanding, grace, and friendship are uniting elements that are far more effective than saddling an otherwise good person with imagined congenital crimes. A person like me can agree that demonstrable racial bigotry is evil, and I have and will speak out to counter it. In such an effort, I’d readily collaborate with just about anyone towards such goals. However, when the argument against racism shifts to an argument of remedying white privilege, I can no longer be counted a compatriot because I’ve now been made one of them… the enemy. Advocate as you please, but I would encourage all adherents of le foi nouveau to consider the lack of wisdom inherent in bearing such malice against so many people who are not already opposed to you, shaming them, doing them injury, and leaving them little place of acceptance as an equal but among those that promote white nationalism. However, if you had already purposed to indulge such errant beliefs, I’m guessing there’s little my essay could do to dissuade you. So be it. But know this: I will not give up the so-called privilege that you perceive me to have; I will not repent; you will not hear my confession of faith; I will not pay any submission taxes nor give deference to any on the basis of skin color; and I will oppose you with the same resolve as I would oppose any peddler of racist dogma. Additionally, I plan to raise my child as untouched by your poison as possible and with as much privilege as I can bestow. Privileges, such as to have both a mother and a father, of being trained in the ethics and morals of Christianity, of being taught to believe in American founding principles such as the creed that all men are created equal in the eyes of God, and of knowing that race is inconsequential whereas the character and conduct of a person are of utmost importance, these I would readily provide. These are privileges that parents of any race can and should give their children in order to prepare them for a good and successful life. Black, white, or any color, it seems to me that if all people were raised in this way, many of the problems that we cling to would vanish. Perhaps that’s the difficult part. After all, what would we do without our most cherished problems? How could we go on without our favorite devils?


– Ryan Thorson


Special thanks to Patty Politics. Please check out PattyPolitics@ youngblackcon on Twitter and YouTube.












#NeverTrump, Still

(Photo from

That’s it! The super bowl is over (at least as far as I’m concerned)! With the suspension of the Cruz campaign, Trump now becomes the nominee of the Republican Party. Boy was I wrong! Seriously, those of you in the Trump camp really accomplished something here. I have to hand it to you; I really didn’t think it was going to happen. However, so great was the establishment’s dislike for Ted Cruz (and his presumptuous ideas like politicians should fulfill their promises to their voters) that they wouldn’t rally to his candidacy. Additionally, so great was the dissatisfaction with politicians and political correctness combined with chaffing under the imperial Presidency of Obama and the general economic malaise, that the candidate that best harnessed all of the related negative emotional energy is now victorious; this in spite of any shortcomings he has. Unfortunately, much like the Joker from The Dark Knight, in the voter’s desperation they turned to a man that they didn’t quite understand or know, someone who in many ways represents the opposite of the cherished views they had until so recently held. Why? They did this because some voters, in their wrath, would rather watch the country burn than work to conserve and improve the best of it. Now that Trump has won, this wish to burn it down has shifted somewhat to actually trying to win, and the Trumpies are trying to appeal to those of us in #NeverTrump to unite with them to defeat Hillary. This is laughable, considering the ends they were willing to go to drag their guy over the finish line, no matter who they alienated or hurt. In the following I will describe why voting for Trump is something I can never do.

There was a time that I thought I might conceivably vote for Trump. I thought that if he picked a proper running mate and took vows to support conservatism or at least sufficiently lied to me that I could maybe support him, but that time is long past. Over the course of the campaign I’ve watched Trump give encouragement to the KKK by not disavowing them on national TV, making every kind of vile insult, propose the craziest conspiracy theories such as Rafael Cruz being involved in the JFK assassination, repeatedly say things that he knew wasn’t true, and advocate for leftwing position after leftwing position. In short, Trump hasn’t the character, composure, ideology, or honesty to be the GOP nominee or President, and I can never support him. The only scenario I could conceivably support Trump, now, is if he called a press conference, admitted that his candidacy is too polarizing to win, and dropped out in favor of the runner-up, Ted Cruz. That would be an act of selflessness I’m convinced Trump is incapable of doing, and so it seems a hopeless business.

There are a growing number of people and media figures that hold they will still not support Trump. Some say they will stay home, some may vote for the Libertarian candidate or some other third party, and others say they will even vote for Hillary as the lesser evil. This has led to many of the pro-Trump folks to attempt encouraging us to back their guy, now that the primary is over. They appeal to common dislike of Hillary or even go so far as to call us fools and traitors to the GOP. That last part is curious, since loyalty to the party wasn’t even a blip on their radar screens in recent months. But before any other Trumpy tries to reason, cajole, threaten, or insult me into supporting Trump, realize my loyalty IS and always will be to principle, not party, nor a man. I will support the GOP as far as they support my principles. I have spent over twenty years trying to strengthen conservatism in the GOP. There have been set backs, of course. There have been betrayals of conservatism, absolutely. However, with Trump, he doesn’t represent a betrayal of conservatism so much as he does an ideological cleansing of it from the Republican Party. Trump neither espouses conservatism nor demonstrates, when asked, that he knows what it means. You can’t betray that which you were never loyal to. Trump’s spiel is that he is the only one who is smart enough to run the apparatus of government, which is a far cry from saying that the apparatus must diminish. Where principle is concerned, deciding between Hillary and Trump is like choosing between equine and bovine excreta.

Before the Trumpies get too upset, I would urge you to recognize that this wasn’t a secret! You were told plainly that conservatives would not support the destructor of all we’ve accomplished in the GOP, from Goldwater and Reagan until now… and you voted for Trump anyway, knowing and not caring how repellent he was to decent people and despite how many left leanings he had. You were angry and wanted to burn it down. That’s exactly what you got! So spare me your pleas for unity, now, as you stand amid the ashes that were once the house of Abe! You weren’t concerned with unity when you forced this Demi-crat on us, and you threatened riots and violence if you didn’t get your way. Well, you cry-bullies got your way. You nominated the most vile, liberal, ignorant, duplicitous, whining, self-obsessed GOP candidate ever. I accept that, but I can’t join you as his nomination is a rejection of all the principles I hold dear: limited government, individual liberty, free markets, equal protection under the law, and free speech, all of which Trump has to one degree or another argued against! True, Hillary has made similar arguments against liberty, but I expect that from a Democrat. I never thought the GOP could make a worse choice than the RINO squishes that we’ve nominated in the past, but I was wrong. Now, I’m left without an ideological home. Conservatives are out, leaving the GOP the home of the Alt-Right, the establishment, and disparate societies of bigotry and conspiracy theory advocates. There are still two parties, but no longer a conservative and a liberal one, but an internationalist progressive party and a nationalist populist progressive party.

In all this, the likelihood of Trump being elected remains the same; slim to none. However, his electability is of little importance to me. Trump’s nomination ensures one thing: the continued supremacy of the left in America and the diminishing of our liberties, whomever you choose to vote for. While there are still people trying to come up with some kind of plan of action, nothing has surfaced as of yet that has any real support, nor any real hope of averting the left’s consummation of total power over every aspect of our lives. So here’s to the Trumpies! You had your idiotic tantrum. You voted in rage. Now, we will all have to endure the consequences of your foolishness. But no, I will not help you. Hillary will win despite your best efforts; my vote will make very little difference in any event. You chose to worshipfully follow your mystery candidate, and it’s not my fault you weren’t concerned enough to look inside that mystery and weigh the cost of its contents. That’s too bad, as the veils of that mystery were very thin indeed. It’s too late now, and I would rather not join in your self-degradation and violate my own conscience by voting for your party’s candidate; that’s right, so far as the national level is concerned, it’s your party, now. Like the proverb that Ben Shapiro likened to this disaster, if you break it, you buy it. Years from now, if America still exists, I want to tell my grandchildren that I refused to bend my knee before your principle-less god’s alter. It’s a shame that’s the only decent choice open to me, considering we came so close to reestablishing conservative constitutional governance to this country. Spilt milk. #NeverTrump

– Ryan Thorson