Wandering Off The White Liberal Plantation

Justice Clarence Thomas, a black conservative serving on the Supreme Court, has recently been castigated by the mainstream media for his role in voting to uphold Michigan’s prohibition of affirmative action in their public universities.

Thomas ironically benefited from affirmative action himself, so this is a major point of contention that liberals have used to declare Thomas’ views as hypocritical. The other bit of irony is that if nothing else, liberals who are opposed to his views have only themselves to blame for promoting the affirmative action policies that placed Thomas in the schools that got him to where he is today.

Thomas did what was right, because American culture generally believes in meritocracy—the idea that people must earn their place in life. Though there is plenty of reason to believe that actual meritocracy is a myth, it is at least something to which folks pay a little lip service. For decades conservatives have argued against the idea of affirmative action on the basis that it leads to discrimination against more qualified individuals, in favor of promoting an ideology.

Affirmative action as we know it today comes from the 1964 Civil Rights Act, when it was enacted by, ironically, a racist white liberal. Lyndon Johnson knew that by giving minority groups “goodies” such as welfare and civil rights, he could control their vote and maintain power. When asked why some of the racial policies of the Great Society reforms were so important to him, he said bluntly, “I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

Liberal racism is a constant theme in American politics. It’s the idea that blacks should vote for policies written by their compassionate white masters, because “we know what’s best for you.” When a minority has an opposing view, they are hunted down with a whip, and dragged back onto the plantation.

This liberal chauvinism extends to other “victim” groups as well. If women oppose abortion or feminism, they are derided as idiots. If immigrants oppose mass or illegal immigration, they become nothing more than stooges doing the bidding of the evil, racist, “old, white males.” When liberals don’t get their way after demonstrating their generosity and empathy, they ironically remind minorities to obey their white liberal masters or else risk condemnation.

Clarence Thomas has been called all manner of racist, pejorative terms in the past few days for opposing an unjust policy of racial discrimination. For Thomas, having his own views that diverge from the liberal or progressive narrative can be tantamount to social suicide, as he well knows.

It begs the question of what kind of country we live in currently. Do we live in a democracy that allows freedom of speech and opinion, or one that is run by bureaucratic elites who only allow freedom of speech if that speech supports their ideals and not yours? The Western world is steadily becoming more authoritarian when its citizens don’t support the policies promoted by liberal social engineers.

Is our destiny to become like Sweden, where expressing an opinion that criticizes the elites’ policy platforms can lead to public persecution and even prosecution? It seems so. In Sweden immigration critics are regularly tracked down by “Anti-racist” groups and publicly exposed, even harassing their employers in order to ruin their livelihoods and enforce “economic discipline”—metaphorical public floggings. They are branded as evil racists, prosecuted for hate speech, often losing their jobs or worse, all for daring to criticize the dramatic changes occurring in their nation.

The kind of racism seen in Thomas’ instance, a much more insidious one, is the kind which insists that minority groups ought to know that white liberals know best, that their policies are best for minorities. You are not free to choose what is best for you; the establishment must do it for you. We saw this in the treatment of Latinos like Ted Cruz, who were treated with absolute disrespect for opposing illegal immigration. Because they dare to have an opposing view to the progressive narrative, they are punished in the media by white liberals and the rest of their Republican lackeys that kowtow to the progressive narrative. The message of white liberals to minorities is clear: don’t wander off the plantation, because your master knows best.

James Harmon is a college-level instructor, artist, and writer. His blog is located here.

A Reality Check For the Right

Caption the above photo.

“Misanthropy develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable…and when it happens to someone often…he ends up…hating everyone.” – Socrates, as depicted in Plato’s Phaedo

“All addiction is bad, whether to alcohol, morphine or idealism.” – Carl Jung

Recently, while watching Bill Maher’s HBO talk show, He noted with glee that Governor Jan Brewer, governor of my home state of Arizona, recently vetoed a bill that would allow people to refuse service to homosexuals on the basis of the freedom of personal association. Naturally, conservatives angrily railed at her. They called her a sellout, a phony, a hypocrite. The thing Bill Maher and all the conservatives did not take into account was that next year’s Super Bowl is due to take place in Arizona, and the NFL said it would pull out if she signed the bill into law.

Brewer is a true-blue conservative. Arizona is a state which is one of only four where a man can buy a gun with no waiting period, immediately put it under his coat with no concealed carry license, and walk outside onto the street legally. She also gave us the more important immigration status check bill which allows police officers to ask suspects their immigration status and prove it. She has pursued a rollback of abortion in the state. She cut taxes. As for the population, the Republican Party there is among one of the most conservative in the country. Arizona takes the lead when it comes to nationalist and conservative issues. Brewer is one of the “least worst” of the Republican cadre for taking the right stand when it comes to gun rights issues and immigration, and is not afraid to say so—even if she does it in “political speech” rather than make a cultural argument like national conservatives would. Regardless, she takes a stand for the right things.

So, did Brewer sell out? In a sense, yes, and in a sense, no. She made the right decision. Many hard-line conservatives would think not, and in any other situation, signing the bill into law would make sense. But if Brewer lost the economic boom of the Super Bowl over the bill, it would make her respected by only a minority of ultra-right-wingers, people she doesn’t need to further convince to keep her governorship well respected. It’s the moderates and independents she must convince. If she made herself look like such a fanatic that she could sacrifice the Super Bowl for a bill that has a great chance of being fought by the Supreme Court only to prove she was a conservative, she would be incredibly stupid. The NFL put her in a corner and she had to gnaw off a finger to escape the trap. She made a good move, and it’s better we keep her around than lose her due to an unrealistic adherence to principle at all costs. Had Murdock in Indiana and Akin in Missouri made the right calls instead of trying to impress conservatives, their Senate seats would right not be occupied by Democrats.

This little maneuver on the part of Brewer, in concert with seeing people online—particularly nationalists—griping about the imperfections of Vladimir Putin, spurred me to write a reality check for paleoconservatives and nationalists on the nature of politics and why we need politicians who make compromises. We need leaders who are smart enough to stick to what is truly important, but know when to back down from a fight instead of falling on their sword.

All too often, I see people throw away a politician because of a tactical move they made instead of understanding the big picture of what they are trying to accomplish. Over the past few years, my libertarian friends became very unenthused by Rand Paul’s behavior, such as endorsing Mitt Romney, supporting parts of the Patriot Act like being able to actually treat terrorists like terrorists, and not going all-out for legalizing hard drugs. White nationalists, who were somewhat excited about Rand Paul for a bit before they saw him not be a complete idiot about race relations, lost all faith in him after he basically disowned Jack Hunter (who was painted as a racist, albeit unfairly, and therefore politically toxic to Paul) and wrote in support of Martin Luther King, saying dumb things about the Republican Party being a beacon of “anti-racist conservatism” and that liberals were the real racists. Of course, that’s absolute crap he said just to ditch the fallout of his associations with known race-conscious conservatives. However, libertarians and white nationalists essentially vilified him for what amounts to good political moves without looking at the bigger picture: that even with all his flaws, Rand Paul would be our best president in decades—maybe even in a century—if he were to be elected. Rand Paul is not only popular and highly electable, but even if he explicitly does not care to advance white interests in the form of an ethno-state, his positions on war, taxes, NSA spying, drones, welfare, abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, and many other things are in our interest, and so far in office he has made good on his promises. He also was one of the few opponents of the immigration bill and highlighted the blatant electoral grab that the Democrats were trying for and called for strict voting regulations for new immigrants. Paul is also one of the few politicians in the Senate with a chance of winning the presidency who could make life better for conservative whites. He doesn’t need to impress the extreme right because he doesn’t need our votes. He needs middle-American moderate votes.

This one too.
This one too.

One of the biggest mistakes people make is assuming that a politician is a liar-manipulator-Machiavellian-evil-not-to-be-trusted-scumbag for making explicitly tactical moves. Most of the time politicians do this. When they do not, we fawn over them, believing that he is “one of the few” who is morally superior—“the chosen one”. Sometimes, these “chosen ones” take the guise of a man like Ron Paul, or in a less popular twist: Hitler. A politician like either of the Pauls is good for our society, but when we pedestalize anyone we set ourselves up for failure because human beings are not and cannot be perfect. Even if they are, we wouldn’t know because it would probably contrast with our starry-eyed idealism about the way things “ought to be”. People want their leaders to be pure. But what is best? A pure leader who gets nothing accomplished, or an imperfect, but accomplishing figure? If you adhere to your beliefs 100%, you may find yourself in a garage somewhere, angrily yelling at a television because the man who beat you is on it and is now enacting his agenda instead of yours. To win, you need to know the rules of the game.

Those that think there are absolutely no good politicians are just as delusional as those who think that politicians can be sliced up into neatly defined ideological sections. Most of the politicians we see on TV are untrustworthy and acting out of self interest—but that’s not why you vote for or against them. You vote based on one thing—what they accomplish. Whatever they say is meaningless. What they stand for is reflected in their votes and policies. The average person dismisses all politicians so they can absolve themselves of supporting the mess of democracy or popular government. Like many of us frustrated conservatives, they want to just give up at times and will only support a candidate who fits their rigid ideological view. But by doing that, you are allowing the enemy more tactical space to work against you. There have always been a large amount of opportunists in the political sphere, but the key is to pick the opportunist that benefits you.

This relates to the “lesser of two evils” argument that we are bombarded with, but there is truth to it. You should at least take the 30 minutes or less out of your day to vote for the lesser of two evils, because the minor amount of effort exerted can have a maximal amount of benefit. If you care about any issue at all, politics is something you should pay attention to. Taxes, guns, civil rights, diversity, NSA spying, and the candidates who support or are against any of these things stand to effect you. All too often, I see political idealists just throw up their hands and quit, or not even bother to get educated about political issues because politicians don’t fit some idealized version of a platform they want. I felt this way until I made myself listen to Ron Paul speak in 2011, and started educating myself because for once, a man on Fox News was saying things I largely agreed with. Government will never be perfect and politics will never be perfect, so waiting for the revolution (unless of course you are a Ukrainian) is simply an excuse for apathy.

Government is something that happens naturally, and without your participation, it will be formed without your input. It is unavoidable. Until nationalists and paleo-conservatives start voting for less-than-perfect candidates, they will get nowhere.

The world is not going to back to a dictatorship or monarchy any time soon—it’s going to be capitalist and democratic for the foreseeable future. That’s the reality, and fighting these things only on the internet is not going to help the cultural right. You cannot use politics or force either to reinstate traditionalism. It has to come organically. What politics is used for is to create conditions where that can happen. And as countries like Israel and Japan have shown, as well as various eastern European countries, it is possible to have a democratic and capitalist state while retaining a cultural and ethnic nationalist foundation for society. This should be our primary goal, and within that move to a better system later.

If this is taken into account, then nationalists and the right need to stop viewing politicians as vehicles for only their specific ideology. Because to survive politically, no matter how pure of heart a politician is, he will not survive unless he is tactically prepared and can make tough calls and appeal to various facets of society that are opposed to our cultural heritage. What this means is understanding when a politician makes an ideological move versus a political concession. Here in America, land of obnoxious optimism and everlasting smiles, when things don’t go our way, we drop off and turn out. We stop voting. We stop engaging. This is not the right course of action.

A good politician in my opinion is a smart, shrewd man who stands up for his beliefs, but knows when not to fight. He knows when to take a dive, like Brewer did. He knows when to back down. He should ideally (pun intended) be a mix of political shrewdness and staunch beliefs. A man who cracks an egg to make an omelet, so to speak.

If a candidate claims he supports the wrong countries and opposes “racism”(anything pro-Western culture, conservative, or white), but while in office stops sending aid to those countries and ends affirmative action, is that not better than a man who does the exact opposite? This is why looking at policy and action is more important than words. Politicians tell people what they want to hear. They always will. And if we want a guy in the White House who is on our side, we are going to have to hear a lot of pandering to the cultural left. It’s the cold, hard reality.

Let’s look at Ron Paul again. In the early ’90s he released newsletters in his name (which were most likely not authored by him, but were still published by him with his approval) that contained race-realist sentiments that bordered on racist for many people not attuned to the language of the cultural right. They also included a variety of culturally conservative “Angry White Male” statements which characterized his world view as both pessimistic and traditionalist. Still, Dr. Paul disowned them and refused to take responsibility for them, because he knew they would be politically damning, and rather stupid to do so. Again, a shrewd and good move. Regrettably, many on the cultural right now call Paul a traitor with a globalist agenda. He isn’t a white nationalist, but he is also not a cultural liberal.

So if we, the cultural right, want to accomplish anything, we can’t only go for purists. That simply is not possible in this climate. We have to transition to a climate where this is possible, and to do this, we need less-than-pure men right now.

All politicians and all leaders do things we dislike. It is the nature of leadership and politics. It can’t be avoided. We need a politician who can play the game as well as stand for a core ideology we support. We need to understand which is the better move in specific situations. We need to transition to a better world, a better country, and a better society, but right now we need someone who can get elected. We need to understand it’s about creating conditions for our traditional culture and identity to exist, and that by voting tactically, we can achieve the gradual transition to a better society. But first we need a reality check.

PLEASE, caption this one too.
GOOD LORD, caption this one too.

Tactical Libertarianism

Libertarianism has quite a few drawbacks—that we know. Libertarians are usually universalists, essentially cultural Marxists who have adopted capitalism. Their nation-state destroying adherence to free market economics is a serious problem for national industry and in addition, they are severely anti-union and usually pro-immigration. They support moral degeneracy by legally sanctioning vices of all kinds and helping to attack foundations of Western civilization such as explicit Judeo-Christian morality present in our schools and supporting gay marriage. They often defend obscenity and the right to be as crude as one wants without much remorse.

With such highlights as defending bestiality and crack cocaine as legal choices in the future, libertarians often make us cringe. Most people in society view the hardliners as extreme moral relativists out of touch with reality.

With all this in mind, why would a traditionalist ever vote for a libertarian?

I have utterly no illusions that most of these libertarians, even the culturally conservative ones such as Ron Paul are not our allies ideologically, and their illusory views on the way society works are sad at best sometimes. But let’s look at the reality: Libertarians are not going to get everything they want, no matter what the agenda is. We still have a socially conservative base that is growing in the Republican Party, and the Democrats still provide a hearty opposition.

So why vote for them if they have an ideology that essentially opposes the nation-state, opposes traditional culture, and are not likely to get their agendas passed?

I have and I will again, and here’s why.

First of all, I don’t vote based on my politician’s “views” or his ideology. Anyone who does so – is misunderstanding the point of voting in the first place—assuming that one’s vote does in fact count.

I vote based on his track record of voting for and enacting policies in line with what works in reality.

When you understand how politics works and you understand the nature of the beast of democracy, it becomes a lot easier to swallow the reality. Though we have ideals–to win or to preserve our culture and our way of life—we need to be practical.

The advantages of libertarians are numerous:

1. Firstly, they are non-interventionists. Right now our country spends more on military than ANY other area combined. Libertarians are open to defense cuts which we severely need, and they oppose frivolous wars which we can’t afford to fight. Traditionalists support a warrior ethos, of course, but they shouldn’t support meaningless wars, which are the mark of a declining power—the same as Rome, Persia, and the USSR. A nation needs a strong military, but needs to refrain from idiotic entanglements.

2. Libertarians support cutting foreign aid, especially to countries with dubious motives. This is something traditionalists most definitely support.

3. Libertarians are virulently against statism, and this means they attack the liberal police state for us. In addition, they oppose wire tapping and NSA surveillance which is utilized to harass traditionalist and conservative organizations. Besides, I don’t think any real traditionalist supports big brother.

4. Libertarians are staunchly pro-weapon and pro-self defense, even in the case against police and the authorities, which are increasingly persecuting us and our allies.

5. They are often pro-life, and crusade against abortion, something traditionalists in almost all cases are against.

6. Libertarians are opposed to the Federal Reserve and its massive Keynesian inflation spending, which drives up prices, drives down value, and over all makes our economy worse.

7. Libertarians defend freedom of speech and association. In a world where our views are considered to be of the lunatic fringe, even allies who disagree with our message but defend our rights are important.

8. They are opposed to militarism in our local police forces. This militarism is increasingly making U.S. citizens feel unwelcome in our own states and hometowns. It’s destroying our communities and our sense of freedom, our culture in the United States. We need other citizens to oppose it.

9. Libertarians oppose massive taxation, something all Americans who are productive, feel is excessive. Tax cuts are good for us, as long as they are not just for the wealthy elite, which is usually the case of corporate conservatives in the Republican Party.

10. Libertarians don’t support regulation of homemade foods or farming which is a part of traditional rural life and something many Americans are persecuted over. They support a do-it-yourself lifestyle, so if we choose to “get away” from society and “do it ourselves,” we can. They may support liberal degeneracy but they support the right to be traditionalist as well. We can’t win only with force.

11. Libertarians often support secession, and for those of us with aims for an ethno-state or separation from the failed state of modern America, this is a good thing to know for the future.

12. Libertarians oppose legislated morality. Now, this is a tricky thing. Here we can argue over society and vice, making arguments going either towards totalitarianism or total liberalism based solely on philosophical principle, but people who do this do not live in reality. Morality cannot be legislated, it has to come from a culture organically or else it will fail. This is why criminalizing and persecuting gambling, drugs, prostitution, pornography, alcohol, or tobacco is pointless when they are personal choices. Unlike gay marriage which is an ideological assault on a core facet of western civilization (not homosexuality itself, just the concept of a homosexual marriage—homosexuality has existed since ancient times and always will), having vices is not. Martin Luther was a drunk, Nietzsche took opium, Cowling visited brothels, and Dostoevsky was a compulsive gambler. Hell, Sherlock Holmes injected cocaine! (Granted, he was a fictional character, but I’m trying to make a point.) Men of the traditional West have always had vices, but they were of a personal nature. Not all of us are puritanical, and why would we be? Puritanism is not traditionalism, my friends. And as conservative as I may be, I enjoy having fun. Libertarians are with the un-puritanical traditionalists on this one as well. Now some things such as hard drugs need obvious public policies, like strong public intoxication laws to discourage bad behavior, but in practice the use of such things is a personal vice.

The point I am making here is that between a corporate conservative, a statist liberal, A RINO and a libertarian, the libertarian can actually benefit a traditionalist or nationalist. They aren’t our allies, but they are a tactical resource that is worth voting for to preserve freedoms that make our traditional world view flourish.

Of course there are huge issues in voting libertarian. You also get their cuts to agriculture subsidies, their universalist world view, and their support of mass immigration (Not all libertarians support mass immigration. Sure, the Libertarian Party does, but Ron Paul has opposed mass immigration and Rand Paul voted against the failed amnesty bill because it lacked proper border controls or preventions of immigrants voting before becoming citizens. It would be nice to have a candidate who votes against immigration on the principle of culture, but that is sheer idealism). But most other types of mainstream politicians also support these things at least tacitly, and given the choice, the tactical benefits often outweigh the drawbacks. Until we get a candidate who we can vote for or support that has a real chance of winning, the libertarians may be our best bet at times.

The thing that we have to remember is we are utilizing them for a specific purpose, not supporting their ideology. If they do not benefit us, we do not support them. The potential, though, is that they may be the only allies we have left at times, aside from the sporadic true conservatives in the house and senate. A Jim DeMint doesn’t come along too often, and Pat Buchanan is on the wrong side of 75. Until our numbers and influence grows, we should consider voting tactically.


James Harmon is a writer, artist, and teacher. He holds an MFA in painting. He stubbornly maintains his Republican party registration despite being to the right of Ghenghis Khan. As a national conservative, he still tries not to take things too seriously, or else no lady folk would find him pleasant to be around. He does rail about the wilds of free market capitalism, but just as any other critic of economic liberalism, he enjoys the finest cigars, whiskeys, card games, and European imported foods.


The Cossacks have awoken; the Ukrainians are waking from their slumber, and the Slavic spirit is reignited. We are witnessing a palingenesis before our eyes, something that makes the Golden Dawn in Greece seem somewhat tame in comparison, and the meager election gains in Scandinavia lukewarm. What we’re seeing is the rebirth of a people, the loftiness of soul that Nietzsche spoke of. In Greece, Golden Dawn is jailed because they are such a threat. In Sweden, Party of the Swedes gains support and the Sweden Democrats are the third largest party in the ultra-liberal culture of Sweden. In Hungary, Jobbik and Fidesz have started to transform the country into a traditionalist and Eurasian force. Russia has shown its might by standing up for Syria and preventing Obama’s wars, and preserved its traditional culture through law. And now, the Ukrainians have risen to take their state back.

Yanukovich has been deposed by the nationalists. The main question here is which way Ukraine will turn. Will Ukraine become another globalist satellite state for the United States via the European Union or will they partner with Russia for trade and keep a Eurasian alliance with the more traditionalist countries? Will the eastern half of the country, which is culturally Russian, break away from Ukraine proper and form their own sovereign state like they have threatened? Will the western nationalists accept this if so? Or will there be a massive civil war with Russia backing the eastern breakaway territory like other separatist, pro-Russian territories such as south Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transistria, effectively enforcing a geographical and cultural split in a sovereign state with the United States backing the nationalists? Will the EU plunder Ukraine’s national resources and force them to accept mass immigration and globalism? Will Ukraine’s culture survive?

To understand the Ukrainian situation, one must understand the history of Ukraine itself. The situation is not simplistic, and no easy answer awaits these lingering questions. The huge problem is a cultural divide in a country that is partly a distinct cultural and national state, and partly a Russian territory. The Ukrainian socialist republic was a product of the Soviets which created the nation we know today as Ukraine. The Ukrainians in the west harbor a deep animus towards the Russians because Stalin created a genocide there in the 1930s, via starvation. The westerners view themselves as a distinct nation, but the eastern half of the country, however, is largely Russian and often votes for the far-left but culturally-conservative Ukrainian communist party. The western half is nationalist and often far-right, with a support for the center-right fatherland party to the right wing nationalists of Svoboda. Right Sector, which is composed of western nationalists declared that it wants to create a nationalist state free from “Russian chauvinism and European slavery.” Easier said than done.

First of all, the two major world powers right now are Russian/Chinese Eurasianists, which are culturally right wing and traditionalist even if economically they tend to be left wing. The other side is the United States and the European Union which are culturally left wing and center-right economically (capitalist). These two sides are at war, culturally and economically, and every single country is a chess piece. For a country like Ukraine, which is not valuable to the United States but is highly valuable to Russia, it could be potentially destabilizing to lose their manufacturing power and their economic power as an ally. For this reason, many pro-Russian sources have claimed the CIA backed the revolution to scorn Putin for foiling Obama’s war plans. The revolution has taken place right during Russia’s Olympics in Sochi—a major embarrassment for Putin. It is tit for tat, by the Americans, it would seem, to get back at him for making Obama out to be a fool and warmonger to the world.

Despite this seemingly un-serendipitous revolution, the Ukrainians, several of whom I am in contact with, such as the noted political writer Olena Semenyaka, are well known within the Svoboda nationalist party, have claimed that the CIA is not backing the revolution whatsoever, and Euromaidan is happening because Yanukovich is a corrupt neo-liberal politician who does not care about Ukraine or its people. Which is probably true. I don’t pretend to know what is really going on. The situation could easily fit into a conspiracy theory, but I am loath to buy into such notions, and remain skeptical of them. Yet there are some serious things to make one question the legitimacy of the revolution.

Regardless, The nationalists claim their revolution was done independent of outside forces—something I tend to side with, though being naïve about the CIA and the United States’ tendencies is equally ignorant. I don’t know the exact truth, but I do know this: If Ukraine joins the European Union it could be potentially devastating for the country, whereas Putin’s Russia is a reliable, traditionalist, friendly nation. The EU hates nationalism and traditionalism, and works to destroy it. So now that Yanukovich is deposed, is Yulia Tymoshenko going to become the leader of Ukraine? And will she lead the country to glory or ruin?

Unlike her more right wing traditionalist friends, who until the Euromaidan, were labeled “far-right” on Wikipedia, but during the revolution were changed to “center-right and then to right wing” under their description (curious change, don’t you think?) Tymoshenko is pro-European, and pro-neoliberal. At least Yanukovich did not sell out his country to the EU, though he tried to. He is of course, obviously a Russian-backed leader and does not stand strongly for much of anything. Like a typical politician he is primarily concerned with saving his own skin first, which is why the Ukrainians wanted him gone. His sole redeeming factor seems to be his support for Russia as Ukraine’s partner instead of the European Union. However, he tried to get the best of both sides, and for it Putin pulled out and initiated a trade war which precipitated the revolution. Yanukovich is obviously duplicitous and not a real ally to anyone—Russia, the EU, or the nationalists. Ukraine needs a strong leader who will make the right choice, which I believe is to be siding with Russia.

If the nationalists are smart and join the Russian/Kazakhstan/Belarus trade union, and keep Russia as their main trading partner, the nationalists will have created a conservative state and put a thorn in the side of the United States’ globalist world power. If they join the European Union, which with Tymoshenko in power is very likely, Ukraine may face a terrible future of mass immigration, neo-liberalism, fast food, and all the other hallmarks of the encroaching globalist power that is trying to stamp out European culture for good.

The powerful thing we have learned from this is that we, nationalists, have shown our power and our strength. We’ve shown we can revolt and depose leaders. We’ve shown that unlike the feckless Occupy movement, who have accomplished nothing in several years, we have accomplished the transformation of a society and primed it for a possible independence that may not have been imagined before. All in less than a third of a year. This means that regardless of Ukraine’s fate, the nationalists have shown we have far more power than we think. This gives us hope. For years and years we have watched as nationalist state by nationalist state has fallen or turned culturally left wing. Now, the tables have turned. The Ukrainians are showing the way, showing that with proper organization, the nationalists are the only hope for real change. Unlike occupy, we have no identity politics to divide us, we have no sex or sexual orientation persecution issues we fixate on. We don’t fixate on “equality,” whatever that means. We fixate on our culture and our heritage. By being united as a people, we can fight the powers that be, stop history in its tracks, raise a fist, and not back down.

Ukraine shows it is possible; that we are a threat to the New World Order and globalism. Hopefully, the nationalists do what is best and support Putin instead of joining the EU. But even if they don’t, it still shows the power of what we can accomplish. It’s a beacon to the world, whether you agree with what the outcome is or not. I support Putin staunchly, so I hope the Ukrainian nationalists will as well. He’s on our side. He has issues, yes, but he’s a conservative and supports nationalists. We have to pick our allies. Russia is our ally. Let’s hope that Ukraine joins as well, and makes the right move.

Even if they do not, however, we know now that change is possible, and that our power is real. Our time is coming and soon we may have the same revolution in our states. We can fight. We can win. Ukraine showed us this. Let’s just hope for our sake and theirs, they don’t waste the revolution by forfeiting their sovereignty and culture to the European Union.


James Harmon is a writer, artist, and teacher. He holds an MFA in painting. He stubbornly maintains his Republican party registration despite being to the right of Ghenghis Khan. As a national conservative, he still tries not to take things too seriously, or else no lady folk would find him pleasant to be around. He does rail about the wilds of free market capitalism, but just as any other critic of economic liberalism, he enjoys the finest cigars, whiskeys, card games, and European imported foods.