The origin of the militia can be traced back to the first colonial settlements in the Americas, when every adult male was obliged to be prepared to come to the defense of the community. This obligation came about because there was a lack of institutional infrastructure in the early colonies, and the conditions of a frontier necessitated the involvement of individuals. Traditionally issues of law and order were left to the authorities, so it was only the extraordinary conditions of the time that enabled the development of the first militias. Additionally, the first militias were organized under the auspices of the government, as legal military reserves that could be called upon in emergencies. (There were instances when local militias were summoned in Europe, before the organization of professional police forces, but they were always called upon for limited purposes, after which they were disbanded). The fact that the royal colonial governors had little more than militias to enforce the laws of the kingdom, is evidence that the colonies were not suffering from any kind of tyranny imposed by the British king, an issue that has clouded the discussion of constitutional issues for two centuries.

The modern militia movement is a mass movement, and part of its image problem is that it originated fully from the population, without the sanction of any of the institutions. The media is tuned into the accredited and licensed world of the Federal and State governments; anything that originates outside of that limited institutional framework is automatically suspected of being less than credible. At the time of the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, the general press had given no one any cause for alarm. The conventional wisdom broadcast to the masses was that there was no opposition to the United States Government in America, other than a tiny fringe-element of paranoid conspiracy theorists. The main reason the political leaders were so angry over the bombing was not because of the loss of life, but because the bomber openly defied their authority on a scale so immense that the conventional wisdom had been proven false.

The militia movement in the United States is widespread and fragmented. There are militia movements in all of the fifty states of the U.S. There are secret militias, there are public militias, there are right-wing militias, and there are left-wing militias. There are so many militia-inspired movements going on across the country, that any time the whole movement is portrayed as right wing we know that the media is making an effort to scare average people away from it. This is because there are dangerous, unpredictable consequences that can result from individuals taking the law into their own hands. It also reflects the fact that the institutions of the republic feel threatened by the militia movement, and the media is the mouth-piece of institutional America.

The entire debate in the United States having to do with gun control, and the idea that the Bill of Rights protects the right of Americans to bear arms, is based upon a misunderstanding by average Americans of that clause in the Bill of Rights having to do with militias. It was never the intention of the Founding Fathers to empower individuals to take up arms against the state they founded. They fully believed in the righteousness of their control over the government as the social superiors of the common people, which they proved out time and again by brutally suppressing every uprising of the masses, starting with Shay's Rebellion, and later, the Whisky Rebellion. The right of the people to "bear arms" was only within the confines of "organized militias," which meant militias organized under the control of the government. The United States Army was actually organized before the United States Government, and it has always considered itself the actual repository of the patrimony of the Founding Fathers, to the point that it actually deems itself the real institution Americans should be loyal to, above and beyond their loyalty to the Federal Government. An attempt was made to bridge this gap by making the President the Commander-in- Chief of the Army, but the genuine rivalry between the generals and the politicians has never ceased, and as evidence of the real power of the Army over the political process, several generals have gone on to become president, starting with General Washington.

The evidence of the real pull of the Armed Forces can be found in its budget, which is so enormous and far-flung that it cannot be audited. This means that the Congress is attempting to balance the Federal budget without actually knowing where all the money it now allocates is being spent. (This is compounded by the fact that the Intelligence Community also has a top secret, classified budget, which enables tens of millions of dollars to be embezzled without anyone knowing how it is being done, or to whose benefit it is being spent). The militias had been left under state control, but the President always had the power to federalize these forces, therefore putting them under the command of the generals of the Pentagon. This was regularized when the militias were re- organized into what we call today the National Guard. Now the militia is no longer a volunteer force at all, but military reserves that have been trained by the regular Armed Forces, made up of men who are de-mobilized, who remain on call in case of emergencies. The modernization of the Armed Forces resulted in the demobilization of vast numbers of soldiers, whose technological know-how was necessary when a conflict was erupting, but who were essentially unneeded during peace time. This became evident when the Gulf "War" took place, and the reserves had to be mobilized in order for the regular forces to function.

The mass militia movement, however, came into being after the massacre of Americans by the Federal Government at Waco, Texas. The media downplayed the whole scandalous event because it never questioned the reasons the Federal Government gave for annihilating those 86 Americans on April 19th in Texas, actually repeating the nonsense that the people there killed themselves; but average Americans were horrified, and it put the fear of God in them, as to the genuine intentions of the Federal and state bureaucracies. It was common knowledge that all electricity had been cut off to the compound, and the lighting in the wooden buildings was totally dependent upon kerosene lanterns. It didn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the introduction of gases banned under the Geneva Convention might cause a fire, and kill everyone inside. Average Americans also knew that less invasive efforts to arrest the leader were never attempted, and that the initial loss of Federal agents was due to the fact that the attempt to execute an arrest warrant was made with all the finesse of the Gestapo. This does not excuse the stockpiling of illegal weapons, and it does not justify the actions of the cult to defy the government, but the fact that the whole operation quickly spun out of control illustrated for the whole nation the fact that the Federal bureaucracy was out of control, and dangerous.

The revolutionary tradition upon which the Federal Government is founded is the biggest weakness it has, because every American is brought up with the vision of revolutionary law-breakers who felt justified in their law-breaking because of the actions of the government. The convening of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 was an attempt by the Founding Fathers to put a cap on the revolutionary era, in order to close it and start a new era, in which patriotic Americans would be expected to obey the commands of official authority. This was of extreme personal importance to the Founding Fathers, because every one of them was a man of means, whose wealth and status depended upon the establishment of a system of order that was ironclad. The only problem that they ever faced was the cultural context of American society, which had been imprinted by the legalistic orientation of the British constitution, the primary focus of which was the traditional rights and liberties of free men, which had evolved from thousands of years of unwritten customs and practices that had been recognized by courts of law since the dawn of time.

There is a sense among the American people that the Federal Government is somehow not legitimate, but this sense is never elaborated upon, and most Americans come to believe that the Constitution of 1787 contains some secret protection of their rights, that the politicians in Washington, D.C. have somehow hijacked. This is the basic clarion call of the conservatives, who sense that something is wrong even if they cannot understand what is wrong in any historical context, due to the distorted history they were given to disable their common sense. Americans claim rights under the Constitution of 1787 that it does not give them, because they have not taken the time to read it in detail, to familiarize themselves with the fact that all it discusses are those powers that shall be invested in the three branches of the Federal Government. They do not understand the significance of the Supremacy Clause, which establishes the conventions adopted by its institutions as the "supreme law of the land," outside of the ancient rules of custom and common law; and they do not understand the true scope of the "Necessary and Proper Clause," which enables the Government that is supposedly limited by the enumeration of its powers, to expand those powers as needed, without limits. They believe that the Bill of Rights makes up for the omission of any acknowledged rights of American people in the body of the Constitution of 1787, but they fail to realize that the institution set up in the main body of the Constitution is so powerful and absolute, that any rights left to the people are subject to suspension at any time, without due process of law.

While Americans may be handicapped by a public education, so that they are unable to distinguish between a "legal" corporate interest, such as the Congress, and an organic NATURAL CORPORATE INTEREST, such as a human being, they still do retain an appreciation for when they, as individuals, feel violated. We may surmise that at the very least, when Americans witnessed the holocaust the Federal Government visited upon Waco, Texas, that it made many, many Americans very insecure, because the actions of their own government towards their own fellow countrymen seemed unjustified and excessive. It generated a fear among average people that if it could happen to those people in Texas, it could happen to any American, anywhere in America. And as a result, these individuals experienced a defensive reaction, whereby they took measures to defend themselves, even if in the mind of media personalities such actions were unnecessary.

Fear is a powerful tool, and when we reduce the power of the Federal Government down to nuts and bolts, it relies upon fear to enforce its authority, and has done so since the administration of George Washington. The first function of the state was the protection of property, and this necessitated the evolution of a full police state, vigilant to the demands of property owners to deter thieves, and punish transgressors. When George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were president, the paramount form of property the state protected was slaves, which involved vast resources in the capture and return of fugitive slaves; a fact that stigmatized an entire race, who became a slave caste in a system that included a white indentured servant class, and a subjugated colonial caste of natives, who were denied human rights altogether because they were regarded as foreign nationals (native American Indians, including the Mexicans in the southwest). The reality that the use of fear in the exercise of state power amounts to a form of official terrorism is hidden by the logic of the police state, that justifies any act of the political leaders to hold onto power, isolating them from the consequences of their policies. By divorcing law from the ancient customs that defined law, it enabled the political class to do anything it needs to do to retain power, while labelling any who defy them as "criminals."

The modern militia movement is the result of the disarray caused by the terrorism of the Federal Government, for individuals are turning to the model they know from the history of the revolution, which obliged them to become active once they perceived that Government might be a danger to their interests, instead of their partner and ally. The country is divided the same way it was in 1776, when the conservative majority was being called upon to betray the system of law and order they had known all their lives. The average man is usually someone who is barely able to survive, and the idea of radical change frightens him, because it opens up the possibility that he will no longer be able to even survive in the marginal state that he is accustomed to. The majority today want to believe in the Federal Republic, despite their nagging fears and doubts about its legitimacy, but then it does lethal things to Americans, and every phantom fear is suddenly animated and real. No one invented the so-called "anti-government" groups that the media lumps all militia movements with, they were the natural by-product of a callous and cruel bureaucracy that has burned bridges with tens of millions of average people, by treating them like dirt.

There are indeed militias being operated by extreme right-wing individuals, but not all militias are organized by extremists. There is a tendency of the media to consider all anti-government groups as "hate groups," which is fully inaccurate and misleading. And there is the tendency to regard groups that are opposed to the Federal Government as anti-government, when in fact these groups are PRO-GOVERNMENT, they simply do not support the government that is being conducted by the politicians of the republic under the Constitution of 1787. This is a very subtle point, and the media is not good at distinguishing fine lines. The media has an agenda of its own, which is to discredit anything that does not support the power structure of the Federal republic. This is never openly acknowledged, but when push comes to shove, the mass media is private property that is being protected by the police of the republic. The last thing the moguls of the information cartels want is for millions of people to get it into their heads that there might be some kind of historic alternative to the corrupt and collapsing regime of the Federal republic. An alternative that might actually provide a BETTER, safer government.

Yet the most extreme militias fall right into their hands, by stupid actions that break laws. These militias are the ones led by the most isolated fringe-element of the whole militia movement, whose ideas are generally dismissed by the greater majority of the movement, but who attempt bold acts of violence to capture attention for themselves. Immediately the media latches onto these extremists, and they characterize them as the standard militia supporter. This way the whole effort can be portrayed as the product of madness, with the hope that the natural forces that are resulting in the growth of the militias can be controlled and slowed, without necessitating any fundamental changes in the political system. The entire population has been raised to be vulnerable to the suggestion of the mass media, which is why there is such consternation over crimes that involve the impersonation of authority figures. The reality that this suggestability has led to real social problems has been addressed with short term measures, like the building of prisons, and the imposition of increasingly harsher penal codes.

It is easy for every law-abiding person to understand what is wrong with taking hostages, and stockpiling weapons. It is easy to understand that killing people is wrong, and that coercing one's neighbors is not an expression of patriotism. Likewise those groups that go to such lengths -- even though they feel justified under the elaborate creeds they have invented for their groups -- actually only demonstrate the kind of world they would create if they were allowed to take control of society, and it's usually not one that most Americans want to be a part of. Yet the media feels free to infer that the same results would occure if any "anti-government" group were successful, regardless of the fine details that differentiate the various groups. The truth, that some groups want to use non-violent consensus building to change society, to empower it to change, is buried under the fear that all reasonable people experience when they are led to believe that all change would be the same, and that all advocates of change are bomb-throwing anarchists.

One of the most striking claims of the militias revolves around technical legal issues, which are dependent upon obscure interpretations of law. Many of the militia members have been influenced by notions that transgressions by government officials have had the effect of revoking the legal status of the state and federal governments, and that they are justified in placing "liens" on public property. This has resulted in serious prosecutions of these people, who have been misled, because they do not understand the real nature of the power that has been constituted under the auspices of the Constitution of 1787. The politicians of the republic are in no way the agents or representatives of the American people; they are elected by secret ballots, which openly disconnects the "representatives" from their supposed principals. There are no powers of attorneys, or trusts, or any other kinds of legal documents that bind the so-called representatives of the people to carry out the wishes of the people, in the manner that a true attorney-in-fact would be authorized. As a result, there is no obligation on the part of the politicians to handle the affairs of the state in the interest of the people, and therefore there is no recourse for the people. This has resulted in the wheeling and dealing of the politicians with the national wealth of the American people, who sell it to whomever pays them off with bribes of one sort or another. This is the blunt reality, and playing legal games with liens and kangaroo courts will not change it. The people who practice these legalistic games will all end up in prison, and they will never be effective in changing the conditions that enable the powerful to exploit the weak.

The militia movement also has a tendency to look to the county as the most important unit of personal allegiance, which is a feature the full implication of which suggests that if the militia movement were successful, the United States would be broken apart into local counties. Ultimately, the militia movement is missing the most powerful issue of all, which is the idea of the restoration of legitimate government, so that the American people can have pride in their country without being compromised by a misplaced loyalty in the Federal republic. This does not mean that the Federal republic has to be dislodged through any kind of civil war, or violence, but it does infer that Americans need to think about a future in which the republic no longer exists, in which government is a friend and partner. Patriotism must evolve to become the love of the nation, above any fetishistic attachment to the republican system of government the slave-owning Founding Fathers saddled us with. Only the realization that THINGS COULD BE BETTER, and that every American has a role in making things better, will result in a future with genuine hope for the average American.

The Regency of the United States of America has been organized according to the ancient customs native to the American people, but while its existence highlights the lack of legitimacy of the republic, it also exists as a transition institution, that ACCEPTS the fact that the republic is at this time the only system of government. Americans are by nature a law-abiding people, and their best instincts to uphold the law must be encouraged, but by the same token, the instinct to break laws of the republic because they are openly immoral must be transcended, so that resistance takes the form of non-violent passive resistance. This is essential, because violence can only lead to divisions and hostility. Americans must learn to respect and love their countrymen, even if they disagree on important issues, because the kind of world we want to create must be built on that mutual respect, if it is going to be a BETTER WORLD. The big problem we have today is the lack of respect for human life that permeates our society, from the prisons to the street, that began with the first slaves who -- by the flawed logic of slavery -- came to be regarded by the political system to be less than full human beings. Only the remaking of our society, under the principles of law of the ancient constitution, will stand any chance of restoring hope, that old enmities can be supplanted by a new respect.

The notion that the plantation slave-state of the Founding Fathers can be "fixed" to support a free society is a completely ridiculous idea. Its main focus has always been its police function, which has always separated its interests from those of the American society. While Americans have desperately needed to find common ground, so that they could establish a genuine national and cultural union, the imperatives of the Federal republic has necessitated that it fuel conflicts between the various component ethnic groups that make up the American people. The fundamental fear endowed into the republic by its Founders was the mortal fear that the masses might somehow combine, and find their way clear to unburden themselves of the Federal state. In the constant effort to forestall this nightmare, the politicians have consistently used the wealth at their disposal to make allies of certain exclusive groups, who became the beneficiaries of the system of power of the politicians. Property that was looted through revolution and conquest was used to enrich allies who could be counted on to come to the defense of a republic that, in fact, curtailed the traditional liberties that had been enjoyed by free people in the English-speaking world since the Magna Carta of 1215.

One media analyst recently said that the rise in anti-government groups represented the fact that there is a widespread collapse of trust in governmental institutions in America, on the part of the people. And she openly stated that she had no idea what measures could be taken to remedy this. The most obvious, of course, is that somehow the integrity of the government must be restored. What is beyond the ability of these great analysts to understand is the fact that the only way the integrity of the government can be restored is if the government is re-organized consistent with the principles of constitutional government, as they existed before the Founding Fathers threw them out. This seems like a monumental task to the run-of-the-mill pundit, something that could never be achieved considering the vested interests that are holding together the status quo; but if the social dissolution is to be arrested, the social peace has to be valued more, and Americans have to begin discussing the impossible, in order to make it possible.

The militia movement is only the most recent outgrowth of the distrust of average Americans with the political system. The fact that the media has shut out the opinions of Americans that oppose the Federal republic has created the environment wherein extremist individuals feel compelled to commit acts of terror to get attention for their ideas. This is vital, because it points up how weak the present system is, if it can be threatened by mere ideas, that have to be suppressed. There is never any justification for terrorism, whether it is committed by the government, or by individuals; yet it would be counter-productive for us to neglect recognizing the conditions that are leading individuals to commit irrational acts. All the media has to do is allow an honest and open dialogue, so that ideas that are ill-conceived can be revealed for what they are BEFORE they lead to disasters. When the media ignores genuine social movements, in which the people have opinions that diverge from those the media is attempting to impose, it allows for those people to hold those opinions in isolation, motivating them to find desperate means for gaining attention for them. And the end result is always catastrophic, because in isolation people forget that other people are also human, or that differences of opinion can be worked out without extreme measures. The reality that the Federal republic only survives through the suppression of ideas must be confronted, so that the greatest weapon we have to change our society can be deployed: The idea that there can be life after the retirement of the slavemaster republic of the Founding Fathers.