Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About Doug1943

  • Rank
  • Location San Antonio, TX, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

103 profile views
  1. I've just received an email, with this in it: "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will team up in 2020 to help elect a new Democratic President and a powerful Democratic Majority in Congress. To support their efforts, we've begun an aggressive ad campaign to damage Trump and his reelection chances. Do you support the early campaign to stop Trump's reelection? " I'm signed up on various Lefty websites, and this was just sent to me from a major one, and no doubt to hundreds of thousands of others. It ends up by asking for money to support their upcoming ad campaign. No doubt they'll collection several million dollars. These people are serious. Are you registered to vote?... is everyone you know (who thinks like you) registered to vote? What about youngsters who've just turned 18? Nearly half of Americans DO NOT VOTE ... and this especially includes young people. Many of these people are natural conservatives. That means that there are literally MILLIONS of potential conservative voters out there who will SIT AT HOME and let the Left win. We must find these people and get them registered to vote and then make sure that they go to the polls on voting day. EVERY MILITIA UNIT SHOULD SEE IT AS A NUMBER-ONE PRIORITY TO GET PEOPLE REGISTERED TO VOTE AND THEN GET THEM OUT TO THE POLLS ON ELECTION DAY. Have a 'Vote Party' and go vote as a group, with a BBQ afterwards. These sites have information on how to register. https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote https://www.eac.gov/voters/register-and-vote-in-your-state-old/ The last site will give you a map of the US -- you click on your state to go to a site which has information about registering in your state. For instance, Texas (my home state), has this site: https://www.votetexas.gov/register-to-vote/where-to-get-an-application-2.html It tells you how to get an application form. I don't know if you can do this, it may vary from state to state, but .. if you can, every militia member should get half a dozen blank voter registration forms and have them ready to give to people who are not registered. Or one member of a unit should get several dozen and given some to everyone else. Then make sure all your friends and acquaintances -- if they are patriots -- are registered. If not, given them a form. And then watch them fill it out, and YOU post it off. This is how the Left does it -- they go door-to-door in certain areas where the population are 'natural Democrats' and register new voters by the hundreds and thousands. It is NOT ENOUGH to just exhort people to register -- if they haven't already, they will need your definite involvement before they do. And then ... you need to organize "vote parties" on election day ... otherwise, many people will forget, or 'forget', or think "one vote won't count, I'll just watch some TV". This should be treated like a military exercise. If the Left win the Senate and the Presidency in 2020, we are in BIG TROUBLE. It's CONDITION RED, DEFCON ONE now. If you have not done everything you can to maximize the number of patriotic voters, who actually vote, ... and the Left win next year ... you will never forgive yourself. If anyone has any other ideas on how to register people to vote, and then make sure they vote, please contribute them.
  2. Of course it can. And some people have just shown how: https://www.youtube.com/embed/aaihuiT24Vg
  3. Many (many) years ago, when I studied philosophy at university, there was a question in the 'ethics and morality' course which is a standard one in such courses. And it turns up in online debates from to time as well. It's this: Suppose a terrorist has planted a nuclear weapon in the heart of New York CIty. It will go off in two hours. There is not time to evacuate more than a few people, and if it goes off, five million people will die. You have captured the terrorist. He is actually weak, and will tell you where the bomb is, so that you can disarm it .... if you apply a bit of 'enhanced interrogation' to him. Just twisting his arm up behind his back will do the job. Do you do it? Now, I think there is only one sane answer to this question. And I suspect anyone who is bothering to read this thread -- unless you really really hate New Yorkers -- would agree with me. But you would be surprised, or maybe you wouldn't, at the number of liberals who will twist and turn and do everything to avoid saying, do the necessary. And here's why: once you have said, sure, "twist his arm, save five million people, that's a no-brainer" ... then your questioner will proceed to the second question: suppose it was only five thousand ... five hundred ... five .... one? He'll lead you along, and you will be forced to agree, yes, twist it for five thousand .... etc. Then he will say, okay, it's not just an arm-twist. We will have to be a bit more harsh. Maybe break the arm ... for five million? Five thousand ? One? And once you've agreed to an arm-breaking to save one life ... the ante will go up. Now it's maybe a hot iron placed on a vulnerable part ... for five million lives ... for five hundred ... for one. And on and on. Eventually, you will have agreed to go full ISIS on the terrorist, to save ... well, not a life, but, say a severe injury to one innocent person. And then, it will be full ISIS just to extract information that MIGHT save injury to an innocent person. It's called "the slippery slope". If you go along with it, then remember that your local police department or FBI may have reason to think that YOU have valuable information about a neo-Nazi terrorist planning an attack. I think the only answer to this problem is the following: Would I twist the arm/break the arm/cut off the xxxx/ of a terrorist to save five million/five thousand/five/one life .... ANSWER: I refuse to answer. Real life is not like some clever philosopher's trick. It's a practical matter. We have rules, laws, customs and we know that there are circumstances, not all of which can be spelled out in detail in advance, in which we might have to ignore those rules, laws, customs. So ... just don't answer. I'll wear this bit of wisdom out on this forum, but here it is again. There are things which are said, and not done. There are things which are done, and not said.
  4. If there is a way for New York state militia members to make contact with the young people being attacked at Binghamton, they should do so, and invite them to sign up. Many conservatives (okay, I'll include old-fashioned John F Kennedy liberals in this, if there are any left) don't realize, yet, just how America is changing. Universities are refusing to fly the flag. Reserve Officers Training Corps programs are being shut down. And the Left is getting bolder and bolder in their physical violence. This can only end one way. No one can predict the future in detail. But it would be deeply stupid to think that somehow, things will turn around -- that the rabies which is now raging in the body-politic of the Left will somehow burn itself out. This means that conservatives who in the past just shook their heads and smiled when the militia were mentioned ... now have reason to think again. But they won't just turn up by themselves. They must be sought out at every opportunity and invited to meet their local militia. Once they have meet real militia members in the flesh, the lying stereotype images of the MSM -- which DO influence even conservatives -- will be washed away.
  5. Indeed. And here's the thing with respect to writing things that are being eagerly recorded by our enemies: There are things that are said, and not done. There are things that are done, and not said. The wise patriot will carry this wisdom with him and let it govern his saying and his doing.
  6. Mocadon: thank you for the kind compliment. There is one tiny phrase in your original post I would like to query: " Early target selection and local/regional strategy might be a good idea too " Now ... I think I know what you mean, and I have already prepared my lawyer's-defense-case for you, when the Prosecuting Attorney has accused you of planning assassinations. What you meant was, in some sort of civil war, initiated by fascists/communists/enemies-of-the-Constitution, when loyal, law-abiding citizens are defending the legal government from violent enemies, domestic or foreign, who want to overthrow it, it would be useful to have already thought about the "target areas" where the Bad Guys are likely to congregate, to be able to engage such targets under conditions of limited visibility. It's been fifty years since I received instruction in this, but as I recall, you are supposed to make "range cards" for your tripod-mounted automatic weapons with azimuth and elevation etc. already worked out, for each likely gathering place of the Bad Guys, so that at night you can direct your fire accurately even if you can't see the target. On another point: I think it would be useful if the moderators started a thread on "How to Grow Your Local Militia Group", and thereon to highlight contributions from newcomers like yourself -- what did/would bring the militia movement to your attention, what would encourage you to attend a meeting, what would persuade you to keep coming on a regular basis? And the opposite. Fish are the last to see the water. Every organization, from churches to chess clubs, faces this problem at some point: they have a hard core of members who know each other, are comfortable with how they operate ... but ... they would like to grow. This means attracting people who may NOT fit the current social profile, who may have misleading views of what the church or chess club does, of what membership of it would mean. So they have to make a conscious effort to 'research their market', and then perform outreach. Americans ought to be good at this, especially the sort of Americans who make up the militia movement. When my English wife and I visit the US, we always go to a local church on Sundays. She is always impressed with how most of these churches make newcomers welcome, and then follow up on them. They are not just left to sit through the service and then leave. I suppose this sounds like common sense, but ... our local church -- a Church of England (the 'official' 'established' Church in the UK -- doesn't tend to do this. And it's shrinking rapidly. So perhaps it would be helpful to have a discussion on how local militia groups can reach out to new layers of potential recruits. Anyway, an idea for the Moderators to consider.
  7. If someone is a believer in, a supporter of, the Constitutional Order that allowed the US to grow from a small band of colonists to the greatest nation on earth, a beacon of freedom and liberty to oppressed people all over the world ... if someone is such a person, I don't give a flying XXXX what they think about the technical issues of racial genetics, or Israel, or the gold stanard, or the Federal Reserve Bank, or the solar neutrino question. We might want to argue about those things over a beer, but they are NOT relevant to defending the Constitution. Neither is who you go to bed with. Don't ask, don't tell, don't try to make me say somethng is normal if I don't think it is. All that is for elsewhere. The original Founding Fathers included abolitionists and slave-owners, religious people and agnostics (Tom Paine), strong-central-government peole and federalists. These were important issues, but the task of the day was to break loose from the British Empire and establish a republic. After they succeeded at this, there was still plenty to argue about -- the original Articles of Confederation turned out to be inadequate, there was disagreement about the new Constitution, slavery had to be accommodated --am unpleasant practical necessity. Nothing is perfect, and if you understand the concept of Original Sin you will not expect it to be. The only question is; what is the task of the day? Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, without looking for other things to divide us. Let everyone who understands the looming danger to our Republic come together to prepare for its defense. That task all by itself is an enormous one and can occupy all the energies of any normal person.
  8. You see, everybody's right. It's a question of emphasis. I have reason to believe that some legally-trained people on the Left are planning to wage 'Lawfare' against the militia movement in the fairly near future, by invoking the prohibition against "private armies". There is no perfect justice in this world. But there is still imperfect justice, and sometimes even justice. If we think we shall always be defeated in court, we will either be careless, or will retreat to our private lives. First Corinthians 14:8: "If the trumpet giveth an uncertain sound, who will prepare himself to the battle?" Juries exonerated George Zimmerman. They exonerated Darren Wilson, who defended himself from the thug Michael Brown (now exalted by Elizabeth Warren as a poor innocent victim of white racism). Don't give up on your fellow Americans!!! Most people DO have a sense of 'fairness' -- it's the one human universal that anthropologists have discovered that seems to be present -- weakly! -- in all human groups. So even unjust laws can be challenged. And until we live under an open dictatorship -- a Nazi Germany or Communist Russia sort of situation -- we have to take advantage of whatever exists in the way of laws and fair play. In the meantime, and not to change the subject -- the most important mission of the militia, it seems to me, is to grow, grow, grow. Avoiding appearing like crazy maniacs is important not just to avoid attacks from enemies, but also to be able to appeal to the next layer of people who ought to be joining the militia movement. Who are they? Among others, veterans, retired law enforcement, gun-owners, and people who believe in law and order and the Constitution (who will mainly be Republicans but will also include some traditional Democrats.) There are probably several tens of thousands of potential recruits from the latest generation of young people who have 'taken the red pill', and are repulsed by the insane direction the Politically Correct Left are taking. I don't know how militia groups try to recruit, but I would expect that fertile ground would found in churches, VFW and American Legion posts, and among conservative political groups. Now a lot of these people are naturally 'conservative', in the personal sense. Radicalism, extremism, of the Right, is as unappealing as radicalism of the Left. It's no accident that the hard Left and their creatures in the mass media try their best to portray the milita movement as gun-toting crazies eager for a shoot-out with authority. That image has to be countered. The next layer of recruits for the militia movement are ordinary, decent, patriotic Americans. These people need to be approached in a low-key way, in my opinion. Not "Join us in preparation for fighting a bloody civil war that the Left is preparing for" -- even though this may well be true!!! -- but, at the moment, "Join us to make sure your neighborhood is fully prepared for any emergency that could arise, including one where traditional law enforcement is not able to protect us". In other words, joining a local milita group means getting trained in group defense -- it doesn't mean you're going to be on your way to occupy Federal property in Oregon or having a stand-off with the FBI. A single gun-owner can prevent a home invasion by one or two felons, but to deter a 'neighborhood invasion' by several hundred doped-up armed looters requires the sort of organization, division of labor, and preparation that a well=regulated militia can provide, because the police may not be there. This has already happened: It's a kind of social insurance. Just in case Elizabeth Warren and people who think like her come to power in the future, and send a message to the police that if a member of a favored minority smashes you in the face and tries to grab your gun, runs away, and then turns and comes at you .... you just have to take it, otherwise you're a white racist. This is the message that will possibly be coming from a future President of the US -- what effect will that have on policemen? Having a group of trained, armed, responsble citizens available to defend their neighborhoods is just common sense. Show a few videos of Ferguson Missouri in flames, after it was targetted by Leftists from all over the United States, to see what is in our future. [Note: even the liberals of VOX magazine were surprised by Warren (and Harris') endorsement of the would-be cop-killer Michael Brown: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/8/12/20801975/elizabeth-warren-kamala-harris-michael-brown-ferguson-tweets).
  9. Yes, I agree with you. We can be absolutely completely 'clean', completely legal, and ... there are people on the Left, and perhaps in government, who will, nonetheless, go after us. These people don't care about truth, For them, the ends justify the means. But ... we do not live in a communist-fascist dictatorship yet, not by a long chalk. They will have to try us before a jury of our peers. The American people are, by and large, very fair-minded, and that includes many liberals. (Liberals are a dying breed, being replaced by 'progressives', who are not the same thing.) So ... we must be very careful not to give the enemy anything that they could use against us. It's just wrong to say, "It doesn't matter, they'll get us anyway." That's wrong. We can win, but ... if we are careless about what we write or say, we will make it easier for the Left to destroy us. Remember, it's not what you thought, it's not what you meant, it's what you actually said or wrote. Everything we write on a forum like this, and much of what we say in public meetings, and some of what we say when we think we're just talking to a group of friends over a beer ... is being recorded and filed. Modern technology makes this very easy to do. (There is technology which can automatically translate voice-to-text, and then seach the text, automatically, for phrases like ;civil war', 'traitors', 'execute'. You can be sure that's this is happening right now, even as you read this.) So we have got to be careful. And this is not just some tactical maneuver. The United States was founded as a law-governed Constitutional Republic, where political differences are settled in an orderly manner. It's the Left, in their horror-states, which rules by force. It's the backward Islamic societies where tribal militias run everything, and the law is ignored. It's the Left, not us, who ultimately hate the idea of law and constitutional government, even if as a tactical measure, they are going to try to use it against us.
  10. Okay..... I think what you're saying is: the majority of people in the USA will eventually put a 'progressive/Leftist/anti-liberty' government into power, and will keep it there. This leftist movemetn will have a majority in the House, in the Senate, and will have the Presidency. Eventually, it will have the majority of the Supreme Court, either through the natural passage of time and mortality, or possibly by doing what Roosevelt threatened to do, 'pack' the Supreme Court by adding more new (leftist) justices. With this domination, they will hollow out any organs of the state that remain: the FBI, the CIA, the military. They will also do the same thing at state level, where they dominate (in the Blue States ... and more and more more Red States are turning Blue). And in the remaining Red States, they will use the power of the Federal Government to override the will of the Red State majority. Have I mis-represented your prognosis? Assuming it's true -- and it seems quite reasonable to me -- then what should we do? I have one big fear, which is that on the Right, there is a Rambo-like fantasy, of some sort of 'uprising' and ... somehow ... of restoring the Republic, agains the will of the 'progressive' majority. Sorry, that is not going to happen. Yes, in a shoot-out between civilians on the Right -- the militia, and the millions of vets, gun-owners, policemen, ordinary decent people who are now poltically passive, who would rush to join it in a civil war == situation ... versus ... what, anti--Fa? the 'Socialist Gun Club'? MI13? -- in such a show down, it would be no contest. That's why the Left will never permit such a showdown. They're going to use the power of the state: the police (at all levels) and the military. Now, as admirable as the militia are, in a confrontation between the USMC, or the 101st Airborne, and any number of militia groups ... there will be only one winner. Don't kid yourselves! Holliywood has served up Rambo to intoxicate you, but Rambo is fantasy for 14-year olds. YOU WILL NOT DEFEAT THE AMERICAN MILITARY IN ANY HEAD-TO-HEAD CONFRONTATION. And the goal of the Left is to have control of the military, to hollow it out, to drive out the genuine patriots in its leadership and to replace them either by their own people, or by people who care more about their pensions than principle, who will go along with all the changes the Left want to see in the military, and which they are already putting into place. They're already well on the way to doing this. Nor are all the examples of 'guerilla war' -- in Cuba, Vietnam, China, Yugoslavia etc ... relevant. None of them are remotely like a future American 'civil war'. I won't go into details here about what distinguished each of them from our future possible situation, but almost all of them are entirely irrelevant. (The closest analogy is the Cuban Revolution. More about that, and thte whole guerilla war thing another time.) So ... given a majority-supported 'Progressive' Nightmare domination of the American state, what should Constitutionalists do? There is only one solution!!!! Sorry, I wish I coiuld say offer something else. But it's OBVIOUS. It's just not easy to see this happening smoothly, but, unfortunately, just as in 1775 ... there is no 'smooth' solution. We don't know the future. Maybe things will change dramatically. Maybe old-fashioned JFK liberalism will re-assert itself against the pro-Transgender pro-Feces-on-the-sidewalk Left. You can see some movement in this direction among the Democrats, for instance, Tulsi Gabbard. But she is very much a minority, and will be covered in dead dogs -- a RUSSIAN AGENT!!!! -- by the corrupt Hillary-beast wing, which is actually in control there. So ... we need NOW to begin raising the possibility -- gently, peacefully, in a friendly,manner -- of an amicable divorce. The orderly, peaceful, separation of those parts of the US which cannot abide living under permanent Progressive rule. It's a radical idea, and therefore goes against the conservative grain, and rightly so. But it's the ONLY WAY to avoid a horrible future. This will involve years of political work: writing articles for the press raising this idea, bringing it up in forums like this, making alliances with other forces (and there are some, even on the Left) who are amenable to this. If we can win a significant minority of American Constitutionalists to be in favor of it, and win the neutrality/indifference of most of the broad middle, and maybe even win the support of some on the Left (who might like to be rid of us so they can carry out their utopian experiments unhindered by our presence) .. . then we have a chance. But .... if anyone doesn't agree, but does see the direction America is heading in ... what is YOUR alternative? .
  11. Any political movement which challenges the existing power structure in a fundamental way, will attract that power structure's hostile attention. The media will attack it -- and by 'media' we can include all the 'opinion formers', from late-night comedians, to CNN, to the New York Times, to the university professors who shape the opinion of future generations. If possible, the organs of the state will be used to attack it. But this will only be possible if the political movement in question can plausibly be made out to be violating, or contemplating violating, the law. The USA has a long history of the government, at all levels, from Federal to Local, sending in informants and provocateurs to such movements: this doesn't include just the militia, but antmal-rights, communists, eco-warriors, etc. It's a well-developed tradition. There are whole books written for the police on how to handle informants, what they can and cannot do legally, etc. (Most informants are used against people selling illegal drugs.) As well, there are private initiatives: newspapers and magazines will assign journalists to infiltrate, so that later they can write a story or even a book about their time with the scary .... ['fill in the blanks here]. Of course a 'good' story will not say, "I found that they were just ordinary Americans concerned about their country" -- that won't sell. So the journalist will seek out anything that can be portrayed as 'sensational' -- "They are preparing to slaughter you in your beds!" They are not likely to just make stuff up out of whole cloth, athough there have been some famous cases, even with the New York Times, were this was done -- but are more likely to take genuine statements out of context. There are two kinds of infiltrators: -----(1) Listeners: Those who just listen (and, now, with modern technology, record). Of these, there is a further subdivision: (a) Those who are hoping to find evidence of preparation for illegal activities. These are from the government: local, state, or federal-level police. The results of their work will be indictments: you'll find out who they are when they testify against you in court, if you have been stupid enough to say, or write, or do anything that violates, or can be construed as violating a law, or planning to do so. You can counter them by not saying, writing or doing anything that they can use against you. (b) Non-government 'listeners': their aim is to collect data: names and addresses and places of work, so that your members can be "doxxed": exposed as "right-wing white supremacist neo-Nazis" etc ... and fired from their jobs, their homes picketed or attacked. They will also happily record anything said or written that can be construed as racist, sexist, etc., but their main mission is to find out who you are. They can be countered by some intelligent discretion with respect to peoples' names and addresses; you can use your imagination here. License plate numbers are a problem which requires some thought. Anything held on computer media -- a database of names and contact information -- ought to be encrypted, and 'poisoned'. ------(2) Provocateurs: The provocateur aims to push you into saying and doing extreme, possibly illegal things. For a very successful example of this, see how the FBI (and good for them!) broke the Klan in Mississippi, via having a Klan member who was also an FBI informant set up a bombing. This disturbed liberals at the time, because it came close to, probably was, an example of 'entrapment'. MOre information about that case here: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-02-23-vw-330-story.html He may also seek to stir up discord within the organizations of which he is a member. He hopes to push the organization into taking an extreme position on various issues. A study of history will show that this type has often been very successful. There is not space here to go deeply into examples -- those interested should consult WIki on 'Roman Malinovsky', and 'Agent K97': both were government agents who rose to important positions within Communist organizations, and used their influence to push these organizations into extreme positions. (Agent K97 was an FBI informant who, at the 1922 national convention of the Communist Party, cast the deciding vote to keep the party engaged in 'illegal' underground work -- cutting it off, in pratice, from the labor movement. Roman Malinovsky was the head of the elected Bolshevik delegates to the Russian parliament in 1912 -- he used his influence to perpetuate the split between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks). Now ... not everyone who does these things is a provocateur! Some people are working for free. We all know that there are certain personality types -- I think the psychologists call them 'narcissists' -- who are just naturally 'conflict-personalities'. They naturally, in any situation, create a for-me-or-against-me atmosphere, and get people set against each other. (My wife's church has just had a traumatic experience with such a person, so I have a lot of documentation on this personality type, if anyone wants it.) If you're interested in this subject, start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_in_the_workplace And some people are just naturally attracted to extreme positions. It's how they distinguish themselves -- they're the most extreme person in the room. They enjoy provoking everyone else by taking up the most far-out position. For them, it's a manhood thing. So ... unfortunately, even without infiltrators and provocateurs, any movement of any size -- more than a couple of hundred -- will attract divisive personality types to it. And some of them will be strong personalities, who will be able to attract others to follow them. And ... they will be absolutely sincere. They're doing the work of infiltrators and provocateurs, but not getting paid for it. It's the job of real leaders to make sure that all of these people -- the 'listeners' and the 'provocateurs', paid and unpaid, do as little harm as possible.
  12. It is VERY IMPORTANT that the phrase "civil war", as applied to some future state of affairs in the US, ALWAYS be tied to illegal actions -- such as a coup attempt -- BY THE LEFT. That is to say, if a "civil war" occurs, it will be because the increasingly-bold and confident far Left has decided to simply abrogate the Constitution, and move towards a seizure of power, perhaps in the context of a contested election result, and/or a national military humiliation. (Communists took power in Russia because of continual Russian defeats in WWI, which demoralized the army. They attempted to take power in Germany after Germany's defeat in the same war, but were not successful. Communists in China multiplied their support many times because of China's humiliation by Japan). In other words, a "civil war" will be something forced on the law-abiding majority of Americans, who will be defending the Constitution and the legal order, just as they had to in 1861. The hard Left have got some very smart people at the top. They are not so stupid as to casually throw around the idea of an attempted coup by their side, a "civil war" initiated by them. In any case, they don't have the firepower. They intend to use the firepower of the existing state. They don't want to fight the militia -- they want American law enforcement and the military to do their job for them. You have to read pretty deeply into the documents and history of the Left to understand their world-view, and why an anti-democratic seizure of power is, for the genuine Marxists among them, an absolutely standard, non-controversial idea .... but one which they have learned to hide. They're not stupid. So although the Left despise the majority of Americans, and wouldn't hesitate to impose a dictatorship on them -- this is the only way socialism can exist -- they are not fools. They know that everything they write is recorded somewhere and can be taken -- out of context or in context -- and used against them in a trial. (It happened to them seventy years ago. They haven't forgotten.) We have to be as smart as they are. I personally feel the phrase "civil war" is a dangerous and unnecessary one, but if anyone is compelled to use it, please please please make it crystal clear that you are talking about something which is initiated by the other side, and not something which occurs because our side finds itself in a political minority in the US in the future, or doesn't like the outcome of a legal impeachment process, or a Supreme Court ruling. Yes ... in superficial visual Hollywood terms, a group of citizens armed with serious weaponry and trained to execute light weapons infantry maneuvers, on the one hand, and the concepts of Order, Legality, the Consittuion, on the other -- are counterposed. In fact, in the long run, they are completely complementary. Law requires Force behind it. Just remember: everything which is posted on this board and on any other political board, is recorded permanently, and scanned and indexed for ready retreival by people who intend to use it as evidence against the militia movement in a future trial. They have already, in a recent academic article, floated the idea of labelling the militia movement a "private army". And private armies are already illegal. Don't believe me? Look here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/armed-militias-are-taking-trumps-civil-war-tweets-seriously The difference between a lawless armed mob, and a real militia, is discipline. In a voluntary movement, this comes down to self-discipline. Fire on command, not when you feel like it. This also applies to what you write and say.
  13. Here's a good book on what was effectively a Black militia group in the American South during the 1960s, when the government there did not protect Blacks from racist terror: https://www.amazon.com/Deacons-Defense-Resistance-Rights-Movement/dp/0807857025/ The Civil Rights movement was mainly non-violent, and this was the correct tactic. (And there is a lesson for us today in facing the Anti-Fa fascists.) But there was also an armed self-defense component. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice
  14. I believe this document has one very good point, and one very wrong assumption and a flawed method. Wrong assumption: the US is going to be invaded by a foreign army but this army can be defeated by armed civilians. There are many good reasons to believe that this is a very improbable event. At most, we might see the intervention of a foreign force to help one side in a civil war. But if the US is ever so weak that a foreign army can actually invade, and not be stopped by the country's professional military, then an essentially civilian militia is not going to be of much help. Okay, NOTHING is impossible. But I believe Abraham Lincoln was right when he said Our problems are internal, unfortunately. There may well be a military aspect to them, but they are in the first place political. Which brings me to the good point: I believe it's very important for a local militia group, and for the militia movement nationally, to project an image of itself as a broad-spectrum Civilian Emergency Corps, ready and willing to help with anything involving social breakdown, from hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, to widespread rioting or terrorist violence. This means that, like a professional military, it needs a 'tail' to back up the 'teeth'. Men (okay, people) with guns, need others behind them (who may or may not be armed) who can lay down the wire for a field phone, drive a bulldozer and clear a path through wreckage, construct a temporary shelter or medical aid point, give medical aid, deliver supplies, compile a sitrep, etc etc. All of these are the communications, logistics, intelligence etc. aspects of warfare, but they are also what needs to be done in largescale disasters. It's a perfect fit. And ... it's necessary from a public relations point of view: if the militia movement is to grow, it has to overcome the slanders of outfits like the SPLC, who will move heaven and earth to portray it as violence-prone outfit of semi-anarchists and kooks. The flawed method is over-prescription: It's one thing to say that the US needs an armed and trained civilian militia to defend the Constitution. You can get wide agreement on that. But exactly how many men should be in a battle-group, whether they should march at 120 steps a minute or 125, etc etc. .... leave that to practice. Most people will probably follow traditional military practice, modified to fit local customs and circumstances. The detail in this proposal has a strong air of crankish fantasy about -- I don't mean to insult the author, but much of what he says could conceivably be up for discussion, but shouldn't be prescribed beforehand. And in general: I know it must be a strong temptation for the people who take the time to form a militia unit -- and all honor and respect to them! -- to want it to be a reflection of their own views on all political issues. But this is a grave mistake. A successful organization will know what is essential, what would be nice but not absolutely necssary, and what would be neither here nor there, in terms of what its members ought to believe. For instance, I suspect most militia members today are conservative Republicans. But, as the Left gnaws away at the foundations of the Republic, we are going to see all kinds of people, with all kinds of beliefs, repelled from previous political allegiances, and open to recruitment. They should not be excluded because of some belief that is irrelevant to being a defender of the Republic.
  15. Before replying, I would like to warn everyone reading this that hostile observers are also reading it, noting down what is said, and hoping that they will find something which can be used, perhaps out of context, to prepare a case against the militia movement. Perhaps a legal case, certainly an attempt to brand the mlitia movement as potentially violent terrorists. So please please please think carefully about what you write. The problem with answering this question is that it is only a meaningful question if there is no legitimate government any more. That has to be made completely clear. So long as there is a legitimate government -- which doesn't necessarily mean "a government I like", just one which holds its power through fair elections and is seen as such by the majority of people -- then only that government can speak of 'treason' and 'traitors', and punishment for same, in anything other than a metaphorical way. In other words, if we are in a situation where there is no legitimate government -- say, a post-nuclear holocaust situation, or where, as in Germany, fascists have seized the government, cancelled elections, so it no longer represents the democratic will of the people, no longer ensures fair trials and our rights -- then how do we handle ANY crime? Never mind treason, how would we handle shoplifting? I think the answer for Americans would have to be, until we can re-establish a legitimate democratic government, we have to keep as close as we can to the laws of the one that has been destroyed, or subverted. Treason has a clear definition, and a range of punishments are prescribed for anyone convicted of it. But here we run into a second problem: resources. In a civil war situation, neither side is likely to have recourse to the resources a proper government has, in particular, prisons. So a long prison sentence for ANY crime is ruled out. This is a serious practical problem. Many guerilla movements have faced it, and solved it in the expected way, as in this example (Raul Castro preparing to execute an informer, 1958). And there is another problem: in a civil war, each side thinks it is going to win. You don't think your sentence, if you are caught by the other side, will actually last. That fact, as Trotsky once pointed out, explains the widespread resort to shooting in a civil war, even if one or both sides DID have access to facilities where traitors could be imprisoned. But ... we're not going to have a civil war, so this question will never come up. We're going to patiently explain what needs to be done to restore the American Republic.. Anyone with one eye in their head can see that things are rapidly running downhill. More and more Americans will understand that everything they have taken for granted about life in America is going to be changing, for the worse. If, as may well happen, a large number of American citizens don't agree with us over time, and prefer to live in the feces-laden nightmare combination of Venezuela and Zimbabwe that the Left is aiming for, then a natural separation will happen -- first, a separation of populations, as traditional-minded Americans move to the Red States, and those who want to live the Progressive Nightmare move to the Blue States. Followed by a peaceful separation of the two populations into new states. This will be an amicable divorce. There is no need to talk of civil war, shootings, etc. Legal and peaceful. Violence, if there is any, will come from the other side, as it always has. But a large mass movement of determined Americans, well armed, sober and sensible, patiently pursuring a legal and democratic path to preservation of their liberties, always co operating with legitimate authority, will ensure that the other side behave themselves.

Follow: @My_Militia

Mission Statement

As the de facto authority in american patriot militias we understand that we oversee a significant share of the publics perception of the militia, and with this many individuals and militias entrust their ideas, work, and data to our platform. We do not take this lightly as we mandate an extreme amount of responsibility and assurance of good faith, transparency, and due process. We will remain vigilant as a trusted force among our people. So help us God.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Your Privacy Is Important To Us Learn More: Privacy Policy