If anyone reading this is from Virginia, and has not yet signed up to a Militia there, go to MyMilita.com and check out their nationwide list of militia groups. (Their site is updating at the moment so you may have to wait to look at it.)
Be careful in choosing what group to join. There are some VERY dodgy one-man bands around that call themselves âmilitiasâ, but are run by narcissists/crazies/ and maybe by people who do NOT wish the militia movement well. Discussion with other militia members can clear up who is legit and who is not.
Hey new guysâŚthere are already threads on this so stop creating duplicate threads on the same topic, thanks.
Are you familiar with senator Churchâs report to Congress following the Church Committees investigation in 1976?
Yes, I am, vaguely familiar. I lived through that period. In fact, I was an active Lefty back in those days, and was no doubt subject to various forms of government surveilance. And I know about the CIAâs role in various events abroad. But itâs been a while, and I didnât play really close attention then, so please elaborate if you wish.
Yeah try reading the threads here before posting another duplicate thread topic!
Well, itâs relevant to the musings of Americans organizing in an effort to confront their own government. But Iâll make its own thread as itâs worthy of discussion in the context of this thread.
Itâs a moot point. No manner of organization could be conducted without the full knowledge of the federal government and any attempts at resistance would be well known and suppressed.
From the Church Committee with the known technology of 43 years ago. You may imagine what exists today.
Frank Church
âIf this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. (âŚ)â
And he was wrong then just as it is wrong to repeat it today.
If it were true there would be no terrorist organizations or drug cartels left operating in the US.
Probably the majorityâŚ
I donât think thatâs true. Iâve started systematically looking at the âAbout usâ statements on the websites of militia groups, and so far they all seem quite reasonable to me.
But ⌠if you have information to the contrary, Iâd be glad to have it.
By the way, for all that they tried, the FBI couldnât catch the Weathermen. They had only one informant in the group, and after the townhouse explosion, they surfaced him to nab two people. The rest were successful in going underground.
In any case, weâre not doing anything illegal. (And itâs important for militia members not to write or say anything that could be interpreted as illegal.) I have no doubt that, now, the FBI has an informant in every major group. Generally, a waste of taxpayerâs money, except for the monetary and other contributions the informant makes to the militia movement.
And the larger the movement gets, the harder it will be for the government to persecute it. This is why everyone who is a patriot should join a militia group today: go to MyMilitia.com to find one near you.
The link even requires you to read and ok a disclaimer over the visuals and language you are going to encounter when you open it up.
IMO, youâre barking up a real dangerous tree here.
Not sure which link you are talking about. Do you mean the link to MyMilitia.com ?
As for that series you linked to ⌠itâs all about policemen who are bigotted, and who are also stupid enough to post their views on social media. Itâs not about the milita movement, except insofar as it claims the militia movement is a âbreeding ground for hateâ in passing, but that is a lie.
Let me repeat that. It is a lie. Please click on this link, which will take you to the first page of the Oathkeepersâ website: https://oathkeepers.org/about/ Watch the video there, where a man named David Berry will explain what the Oathkeepers are about. And read this statement, which follows the video:
Oath Keepers come in all colors, shapes, sizes, ages, and backgrounds with one common bond â the oath to defend the Constitution. If you take your oath seriously, and believe in defending the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, and of whatever political party (there are oath breakers galore in both major parties), and if you stand for the rights of all Americans, at all times, then you are one of us. Join us. We need your help to preserve liberty for our children and grand-children, and for all Americans.
A few months ago, the Proud Boys was holding a rally in Portland, where Anti-Fa attacked them, as usual. In the lead up to the Portland demonstration. Itâs the kind of thing the Oathkeepers normally would go to, but Stewart Rhodes, their leader, refused to endorse attendance, because the leader of the Proud Boys was not rigorous enough in excluding white supremacists.
Probably the âbestâ attack on the Oathkeepers is from the Southern Poverty Law Association â I have zero respect for their integrity, but they are the best in the enemy camp â and hereâs a link to their piece on the Oathkeepers:
They note some criminal actions by certain individuals who were members of the Oathkeepers â but if a whole organization is to be condemned for the actions of a few of its members, then we are all really in trouble. it would be like blaming SDS (the mass radical group in the 60s) for the actions of the Weathermen, who were members â indeed leaders â of SDS. But SDS didnât endorse terrorism, and nor does the Oathkeepers.
The âbestâ part of this piece is the following: âFour months later, white, heavily armed Oath Keepers showed up in Ferguson, Mo., during the racial unrest that followed the shooting death of Michael Brown, a black man, by a police officer. The heavily armed group members were seen on rooftops patrolling in what they said was an effort to protect businesses from rioters. Though they later claimed to have protected one black womanâs business, it seemed clear that they were really there to protect white businesses against black protesters.â
I love that âblack protestersâ bit â but the best part is this: the Oathkeepers said they were there to protect all businesses from the âprotestersâ including a Black-owned business. But the SPLC can read minds ⌠so it âseemsâ clear that they were really there to protect white businesses only. This is the mindset of the KGB.
No, it was certainly not in passing. It very pointedly portrays the guttural nature of these institutions which are supported by people who should never be allowed to wear the uniform.
I think your authority for saying this is the Southern Poverty Law Center. Is that correct?
If you have other sources of information on the current day Miliita Movement, I would be very glad to see them.
Actually the center for investigative reporting. I provided a link. Rather than getting caught up in the source, why not address the findings and address them one by one.
Yes, I had seen that link some weeks ago, even before this thread, when I began researching the popular perception, and the leftist perception, of the militia movement.
My argument is this:
(1) In the past, there have been organizations which were at least congruent with contemporary militia groups, which were white-supremacist and violent. i donât think â but I could be wrong â that any of them explicitly used the term âmilitiaâ, but they could have. They had a conspiracy theory of the world, and were racial tribalists. Groups like the Posse Commitatus, the Silent Brotherhood (called âthe Orderâ by most people), and the âChristian Identityâ movement fall into this category, and of course the various neo-Nazi groups and Ku Klux Klan outfits. Some of these people engaged in violence and murder.
(2) There have been, and probably are today, individual members of local militia groups which subscribe to essentially this world view. They are a small minority of the membership of the current militia membership. Itâs impossible to guarantee that every single member of the militia is sound, just as a mosque cannot guarantee that every one of its members is not a violent Islamist.
(3) Many militia members, while not being explicit white supremacists or âNew World Orderâ conspiracy theorists, are not politically sophisticated, and can be vulnerable to some of the ideas of these groups, especially the latter. My personal experience with militia movement members is that they find explicit anti-Semitism and white racism distasteful at least, and in general strongly oppose it â it is directly counter-posed to the concept of American patriotism â but are open to belief in some sort of vague âNew World Orderâ conspiracy theory, which is seldom spelled out. This âtheoryâ remains vague, and is in fact close to the traditional belief of the Marxist Left â now increasingly influential in the Democratic Party â that America and all capitalist nations are run by a âruling classâ and that formal democratic institutions such as a free press and elections, are just deceptive illusions to keep the working class in bondage. In essence, it attributes more consciousness than it should to natural social and economic changes, and overlooks the deep splits and competition among various elite groups. But as a crude description of social reality as experienced by the non-elite working class base of American society, it is not entirely wrong.
(4) Among defenders of the Second Amendment â not among just militia members â there is a fair amount of loose talk about doing things which, if taken seriously, amount to sedition. Proposals to âarrestâ the legislators and governor of Virginia and âtry them for treasonâ, for example. If you go on to YouTube and look at the comments section in the videos about the pending march in Virginia in defense of the 2nd Amendment, you will find many such statements â along with pro-2A people repudiating them. I believe that 99% of these eructations are just hot air â like the âOff the Pigâ chants you used to hear in the 60s at leftist rallies â and the other 1% are conscious efforts to destroy our movement by agents provocateurs. Anyone who has studied the history of radical political movements will know that government infiltrators always support the most extreme factions within them â for example, at the final meeting of national SDS, which split into two factions, the many FBI informants there were ordered to support the Weathermen faction. But itâs all hot air, by armchair activists who probably wonât even come to the demonstration.
So ⌠my claim is that the modern militia movement is definitely made up of people with whom liberals and progressives would not be comfortable. As American progressives move away from patriotism and pride in their country and its history, they wonât find many people sympathetic to their views in the militia movement. But the militia organizations are not white supremacist and are no more suspicious of the government than many people on the Left are ⌠and with good reason.
Let me try to convince you of this by quoting the membership requirements of a couple of militia groups: first, the Arizona State Militia: [ http://azstatemilitia.com/ ]
General membership in the Arizona State Militia is open to all lawful citizens of the State of Arizona above the age of 18, provided the applicant is not a felon, prohibited-possessor, racist, radical/extremist or anti-government person. There shall be no discrimination due to, race, sex, national origin, religion, political affiliation, or physical characteristics. Membership is strictly voluntary. All potential members of the ASM must be legally able to possess a firearm, must be a United States Citizen, and a resident of the State of Arizona.
As you move through the recruitment process, you must be able to provide proof that you are not a felon or prohibited person from owning a firearm.
Hereâs an extract from a less sophisticated statement, by a Colorado Militia group:
We are a Constitutional Colorado Militia Unit. We are a group of American Citizens in the the Colorado Front Range area who believe that our rights are STILL worth defending. We believe that our way of life is worth fighting for. We insist on freedom for ourselves, and freedom for our children. We consider the United States Constitution the supreme law of the land. We all recognize that our rights are God given and were numerated by the founders so we as citizens know those rights and will take the responsibility to protect those rights from Government infringements of those rights. These rights are granted to us from God (Yes, GOD). We consider any treaties or legislation that attempts to undermine our God-given rights to be illegal, invalid, and treasonous.
We do not condone or allow illegal activities.
We are interracial and open to other cultures.
We are here to help our communities and serve our fellow Americans.
We do not run in the face of adversity. We will stay and fight.
Considering treaties or laws that âundermine our God-given rightsâ as âtreasonousâ sounds a bit scary â just as the views of an increasingly numerous and influential section of the Democratic Party that laws are meant to protect the capitalist class does. (Did you know that you can now be an open member of the Communist Party, and also a Democratic Party precinct chair?) But itâs what you do in response to this belief that counts.
I claim that the great majority of the militia movement are peaceful citizens exercising their legal rights. You may not like them â of course you donât, since most of them are on the Left (although most militia members I have discussed this with say they would welcome supporters of the Democratic Party â they probably have in mind industrial workers and union members who have seen their jobs exported to China â and see their preparation not as preparation to engage in war with the present government, but as preparation for some, necessarily unknown, future state of affairs, in which the legal and democratic order has broken down. I myself think thatâs just prudence.
And ⌠note that we have had a situation in America where the legal democratic order did not cover all Americans: namely, the American South, with respect to its Black citizens. Look up the Deacons for Defense and Justice â a Black armed self-defense group in the 60s â the âmiliitiaâ of its time â which I am proud to say I played a tiny tiny role in supporting, by raising and delivering money to them to buy ammunition. You could argue that their very presence encouraged local law enforcement to extend its protection to Black people.
So the militia movement has a good ancestry.
Doug, youâre a long winded devilâŚ
I will agree with you that not all âmilitiaâ members would be people with worrisome beliefs. Seems to me that to be sure, thereâd need to be more openness. But of nature these type organizations tend to be of secretive nature. You can however be certain that our FBI monitors and likely infiltrates such groups if they feel the need. Of their many hats is keeping America safe from domestic threats of violence.
Such mission statements as the one quoted, seem innocuous enough.
Btw, I heartily disagree with you that liberals are not patriotic or proud. One can be proud of their country while simultaneously accepting responsibility for historical wrongs and working to make them right.
I also think that the common average American liberal is far less interested in infringing upon your second amendment than they are frustrated beyond measure with the killing that is largely unique to America, and the risk to themselves and their children being killed at school, the grocery store, the mall, the movie theater, at church or out to a concert.
Execute the policy that would end that and liberals wouldnât even be talking about your guns.
Yes, I am long-winded. Iâm not interested in brief exchanges of insults. And I donât think that serious arguments can be had in brief exchanges.
You are right that the FBI almost certainly has an informant in every militia unit, or at least has that as a goal. And, sadly, this is necessary, so long as what they are doing is keeping an eye out for crazies. In an ideal world, every militia unit would tell the local police/FBI if an obvious crazy turned up trying to join. There has been some bitter disputes within the movement, or groups which âlook likeâ militias, about co operation with the police. So far as I am concerned, we need to have the closest possible co operation.
I should say that many liberals used to have a distinctly negative attitude to the FBI, and still do, with respect to how it has dealt with potential Islamic terrorism. I have yet to read Michael Germanâs books on the FBI, and might be a bit more negative about it when I do.
As for liberals and patriotism. I would never say that a liberal could not be patriotic. When I hear fellow conservatives say something like that, I refer them to Pat Tillman
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman ] ⌠or, if the subject is courage in combat, to Robert Thompson â [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Thompson ] far âworseâ, from our point of view, than a liberal⌠but I agree with the late, great essayist Murray Kempton â a liberal of the old school â about this man [https://pages.jh.edu/jhumag/0997web/kempton.html ]. But liberalism of the JFK sort is dying. Instead, we have something new, which for want of a better term we can call âProgressivismâ â and it is distinctly anti-patriotic: for instance âStudent government leaders at a Michigan university have banned the Pledge of Allegiance from meetings. The student senate, which had previously made time for the Pledge each meeting, deemed the verbiage to be non-inclusive.â And this is not an unrepresentative fluke. Itâs a growing trend, and I have many more examples.
By the way, I donât consider âpatriotismâ a virtue like, say, honesty. Itâs neutral, and has a core of self-interest, and is necessarily potentially something that can be harmful. So if someone is personally non-patriotic, because they are âcommitted to humanityâ or something, I would not condemn them. But in the US, patriotism has a special virtue, because it helps weld the various tribal groups together. Hereâs a vivid illustration of how a social group â white bikers â who, you might think, would not be very acceptable to campus Leftists in their social attitudes re race and women and sexual orientation â had whatever backward attitudes they might have on the race question, totally overcome by patriotism â watch the video⌠flag-burning Lefties and cross-burning KKKers would have been well advised to stay far away from these processions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DNlXqMpmhU
So my objection to the anti-patriotism of the Left is purely instrumental: they are objectively helping the growth of racialism, which is actually a serious threat in the US. And they themselves have lost that non-rational, emotional link to their country which may be necessary some day in a time of peril.
As for the question of mass murder being facilitated by semi-automatic rifles ⌠well, youâre right. In an ideal world, we wouldnât have them. But in an ideal world, we wouldnât have murderous lunatics, so we COULD have them. I have no simple answer to this problem. (I have a complicated one, but itâs too long to outline here, and probably has not a prayer of getting implemented anyway.) I would like to see it easier to put obviously mad people into a safe (for them, and us) environment, but I believe a malign united front of civil-liberties-obsessed liberals and tax-hating conservatives killed off such institutions fifty years ago.
Finally, a question: what guns are you in favor of banning? There is one school of thought which says, ban scary-looking âassault riflesâ â the ones looking like Mattel toys â with magazines of more than ten rounds capacity, but let us keep semi-automatic rifles with magazines of ten rounds or fewer capacity. Would that be your position?