-Caveat Lector- The horse's mouth - militia Part 1 of 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri, 05 Jun 1998 04:37:11 -0700 Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ] Next message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: "The horse's mouth - Militia part 2 of 3" Previous message: Jon Fine: "Re: Calif turnout?" From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 04:37:11 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The horse's mouth - militia Part 1 of 2 Enough masturbation. Here's the real thing. Joshua2 ------------------------------------------------------------------- I am forwarding a recent research paper that I thought you might like to read. Concerning the reality of what is ahead for the USofA, you might like to enter into my mind and my point of perspective. As far as I know, the paper isn't copyrighted should you want to forward it or post it elsewhere. Norm Olson The Michigan Militia: Political Engagement or Political Alienation? MACK MARIANI The split within the Michigan Militia leadership highlights a disagreement between competing factions about the role militia groups should play in the political system. Norm Olson, the deposed commander of the group, rejects political participation entirely and focuses on the militia's paramilitary role. The leadership that replaced him under Lynn VanHuizen and Tom Wayne actively engages the political system using tactics resembling those of modern interest groups. Despite continued challenges to VanHuizen and Wayne's leadership, the Michigan Militia has maintained this focus. Ada Finifter's classic conception of the multiple dimensions of political alienation is utilized as a framework from which to understand these different views of political participation. Strategies that restrict or stigmatize traditional forms of political participation by militia groups may, in certain cases, increase the likelihood of violence and should be carefully considered in light of this risk. The Michigan Militia was created in 1994 as an organizational structure for the growing militia or 'patriot' movement. The group encompasses a number of regional militias within a loosely maintained military-style hierarchy and reports an organizational presence in 70 of Michigan's 83 counties. By late 1994, the Michigan Militia claimed to have as many as 12,000 members and was recognized by Soldier of Fortune Magazine as one of the 'largest and best organized' militias in the United States. As a result of their high-profile military maneuvers, their successful recruiting and organization, and the media-friendly attitude of the group's founders, the Michigan Militia gained significant media attention in late 1994 and early 1995. That attention increased exponentially after the bombing of the Alfred T. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 when much of America's attention focused on the ties of two bombing suspects to the complex and conspiratorial world of the militia movement. Nowhere was attention directed more than in Michigan, where the two bomb suspects, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, were said to have attended a Michigan Militia meeting. The focus of law enforcement, media and Congressional attention on the Michigan Militia was followed by a contentious struggle among the group's leadership. Norm Olson, the Michigan Militia's founder, commander and best-known media spokesman, was forced to resign his position as commander. Subsequently, Olson sought to regain the position, but was defeated in an election by Lynn VanHuizen. After this defeat, Olson distanced himself from the Michigan Militia, breaking away from the group and forming his own militia, the Northern Michigan Regional Militia. An examination of the actions and rhetoric of Olson and the Michigan Militia's new leadership since that time shows that, while their broader worldviews remain largely the same, significant differences exist between their views of the role militias play within the mainstream political system. No study has yet closely examined the contribution this difference may have made to the split between Olson and the Michigan Militia leadership or the effect that it may have on the future development of the militia movement. After briefly describing the circumstances surrounding Olson's split from the Michigan Militia in July 1995, this article will: Examine the similar backgrounds and shared political philosophies of Norm Olson and the new Michigan Militia leadership that replaced him; Detail the different views toward political participation held by Olson and the present Michigan Militia leadership; Note the maintenance of the Michigan Militia leadership's views despite a challenge from a more 'radical' faction within the group; Place these different worldviews within the context of multiple dimensions of political alienation and discuss whether these differences represent different directions for Olson and the Michigan Militia or are merely separate stages along a shared pattern of development. The research for this paper was drawn largely from interviews with Norm Olson, the founder and former Commander of the Michigan Militia; Tom Wayne, the Chief of Staff for the Michigan Militia; and Joe Pilchak, the leader of a faction which broke away from the Michigan Militia in February, 1998. Olson's Split with the Michigan Militia The Michigan Militia faced intense law enforcement scrutiny and extremely critical media attention in the weeks immediately following the Oklahoma City bombing. Over the objections of a majority of the group's leadership, then-commander Norm Olson issued a press statement alleging that the Japanese government bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in response to the Central Intelligence Agency's alleged involvement in gas attacks on the Japanese subway system. The group's leadership forced Olson to resign his position as commander less than a month after the bombing. Following his resignation, Olson continued his association with the Michigan Militia, announcing that 'the Michigan Militia is as strong as ever' and assuring the press that he would remain a member. Indeed, Olson participated with a member of the new Michigan Militia leadership, group spokesman Ken Adams, in testimony on the militia movement before a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in June of 1995. In July 1995, Olson attempted to regain the position of commander and was defeated in an electoral contest by Lynn VanHuizen. Following this defeat, Olson announced his decision to split entirely from the Michigan Militia. Olson was outspoken in his criticism of the group for 'going moderate' and announced the formation of the Northern Michigan Regional Militia to 'resurrect and re-energize what the militia initially was'. In response, the Michigan Militia's newly elected commander, Lynn VanHuizen, distanced himself from Olson, announcing that the group had rejected Olson's 'radical views'. The question arises: are there substantial differences between the views of Olson and the Michigan Militia's new leadership that make them incompatible? Or is Olson's split merely a consequence of his failure to win an internal power struggle within the organization? A close examination of the public statements and organizational literature produced by the Michigan Militia and the Northern Michigan Regional Militia makes it clear that Olson and the Michigan Militia leadership share many of the same fundamental beliefs. Below I will detail this shared political philosophy, which emerges in part from common life experiences and backgrounds. Shared Backgrounds Norm Olson and the members of the present Michigan Militia leadership continue to share a largely similar view of the problems facing the nation and the goals they hope to achieve through participation in the militia movement. Their agreement on many key points of militia doctrine has continued even after Olson's split with the group and in spite of increasing differences in other areas, detailed later in this article. The similarity of their worldviews should not be surprising, since it was this shared outlook that likely attracted each to the militia movement in the first place. This shared outlook may have been fostered, in part, by the interests and life experiences that Norm Olson shares with both Tom Wayne and his colleague, Michigan Militia Commander Lynn VanHuizen. All three are veterans. Olson served 20 years in the U.S. Air Force, while VanHuizen and Wayne both served in the U.S. Army and saw service in Vietnam. In addition to years of shared experiences in the military culture and significant amounts of military training, Olson and VanHuizen share a common profession as gun shop owners. Their connection to the firearms industry sheds light on their mutual interest in gun rights and deep concerns about restrictions on firearms. Importantly, it also has very likely exposed them to numerous 'patriot' influences, due to the proliferation of militia recruitment and literature at firearms industry trade shows. Under the leadership of VanHuizen and Wayne, the Michigan Militia has promoted a worldview that goes far beyond the widely held belief that the federal government has become too large, too distant and too powerful. For these leaders of the militia movement in Michigan, the American Republic is in such a deep state of crisis that average citizens must join the militia movement in order to defend themselves against an increasingly tyrannical government and out of control government agents. In both his public statements and the literature he produces for the Northern Regional Michigan Militia, Norm Olson makes it clear that he continues to share this view: The militia MUST pose a tremendous threat to tyrants and terrorists who hide within the government�One may ask , 'Who would have the power to throw off such Government?' The citizen militia of course�.The citizen militia are the citizens protecting themselves. The extent to which they share the same goals is reflected in a comparison of the handbooks of both the Michigan Militia and Olson's group, the Northern Michigan Regional Militia. Each contains identical language outlining their individual group missions and goals. Among the goals: [to] Inform its members of local, national and global events imperiling the Constitution and impacting the direction of the country�. [And to] Encourage its members to stand against tyranny, globalism, moral relativism, humanism, and the New World Order threatening to undermine our form of government and these United States of America. At the core of their beliefs is the idea that the growth and expansion of the federal government since the time of the New Deal has led to the slow but continual usurpation of the rights and freedoms of the American people. Their views in this respect resemble the conspiracy theories circulated by Eugene Schroder. Schroder claims that the Constitution has been suspended and the rights of the people usurped since Franklin D. Roosevelt invoked martial law powers during the Great Depression and World War II. Citizen militias were formed in order to avert � or, at the very least, resist - the allegedly tyrannical actions of the federal government. The frustration with, and fear of, the federal government that is shared by many in the 'patriot' movement in Michigan is made starkly clear in an essay on the Michigan Militia web site, which states: Every day government is getting larger and more intrusive on individual rights. We are here to try and curb this frightening phenomenon.... We wish to show how excessive the government is getting, and there is no end in sight. Every year thousands of liberty-restraining regulations and laws are put into effect, each one more limiting on the individual than the previous. Chief among the liberties they perceive to be in danger is the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For the 'patriot' movement, the passage of new federal gun control laws, such as the Brady Handgun Control Act and the Assault Weapons Ban, is part of an organized effort to disarm the American people and pave the way for future government tyranny. They view gun rights as the foundation upon which all other rights are based: 'How can a free people expect to remain free from corruption and tyranny without any way to back themselves up? �It is our job to protect what liberties we have left'. These militia leaders point in particular to the actions of federal government agents at Waco and Ruby Ridge as evidence that federal agencies do indeed threaten the liberties of the American people. Waco and Ruby Ridge are perceived as 'blatant signs of the Federal Government's wielding of unlimited power', confirming militia members' fears that their own government was, in fact, their worst enemy and was targeting supporters of gun rights. The Michigan Militia asserts that their top priority is preventing similar instances of what they perceive to be aggression and violence against gun owners by federal agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). In their view, armed citizen groups like the Michigan Militia help ensure that 'there will be no more Wacos or Ruby Ridge events'. The United States government is not the only institution that is perceived as a threat by these militia leaders. Attention is also focused on the actions of the United Nations, which is viewed as 'undermining our form of government' in order to form a 'New World Order'. In this view, subscribed to by many (though not all) in the militia movement, the ultimate goal of the United Nations is to become an all-powerful one-world government, supplanting U.S. sovereignty and restricting the rights currently enjoyed by American citizens. Instead of being deterred by the perception of an overwhelming national and global threat to their liberties, members involved in the Michigan Militia proclaim themselves optimistic that their efforts will prove successful. Their optimism is inspired by the success of the citizen militias during the American Revolution, which overcame great odds to defeat the well-equipped and professionally trained British forces. The importance that this American Revolutionary mythology has on the current militia movement in Michigan cannot be overemphasized. The interest in the founding period emphatically expressed by both Wayne and Olson dramatically effects the way they view the political system and the role they see themselves playing as members of a citizen militia. The Michigan Militia's leaders view themselves as the last defenders of the true principles of the Revolution and the 'spiritual heirs of the Revolutionary-era citizens who took up arms against British tyranny'. The indirect product of the Revolution of 1776, the Constitution of 1789, is seen as a near-perfect document which has been diminished by activist courts and self-serving politicians. In their view, the modern militia movement can restore the original principles of the Revolution, reject the tyrannical excesses of the current system and restore the American government to its 'historical, limited and constitutional function'. Thus, the literature of the Michigan Militia places its members at the center of a battle for America's future: Therefore, it is to us, the inheritors of the task begun more than two centuries ago, to seek and secure these same ideals in the face of the same threats expressed by Patrick Henry. Additionally, comparisons with the American Revolution allow militia members to accept their role as 'outsiders' to the mainstream culture and its institutions. Militia leaders compare the public's rejection of their views to the early experiences of their Revolutionary-era counterparts, whose views in opposition to the British government were initially labeled 'treasonous'. These militia leaders further believe that public opinion will shift and their movement will be embraced, just as the colonies' view of Revolutionary leaders, and their British opponents, shifted during the crisis years preceding the Revolutionary War. In the words of Norm Olson: We in America forget sometimes that men such as Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and even George Washington were hated and despised by many in the time of crisis...but history has a way of washing off the dirt and looking at people more favorably. I would hope that history will be kind to me as well. Thus, possessing a self-image cloaked in the mantle of patriotism and Revolutionary-era mythology, Norm Olson and the present Michigan Militia leadership share the fear that the federal government and the United Nations pose a very real threat to the liberties of American citizens. They are brought together further by their shared life experiences, mutual and unyielding support of gun rights, and employment in the firearms industry. Each views an armed citizenry, actively engaged in the militia movement, as an essential mechanism that is needed to secure liberties and limit the growth and power of government. But, despite this shared worldview, it is clear that significant differences do exist between Olson and the present Michigan Militia leadership on the role of militias in the present political system. While Olson has chosen to reject political participation in the strongest possible terms and focuses largely on the paramilitary role served by the citizen militia, the Michigan Militia downplays the group's paramilitary role and attempts to actively engage the mainstream political system, albeit from the fringes. Understanding these differences may help explain why Olson split with the Michigan Militia in July 1995 and may shed light on the future development of the militia movement in Michigan. Norm Olson: Complete Rejection of the Political System Norm Olson and his group, the Northern Michigan Regional Militia do not participate in the mainstream political process. In fact, Olson views participation in the political system as counter-productive to the goals of the militia. Olson's view of political participation is very clear: The Militia has got to be a militia. It cannot be diluted into a political action group or running candidates or anything else. We've got to be militia...Because that group (The Michigan Militia) had gone into the political arena and become politically active rather than militarily active, I didn't want any part of it. I was taught when I was in the militia that soldiers ought to stay out of politics. In Olson's view, there is no role for the militia in mainstream politics. The role of the militia is purely military. The differences between Olson and others in the Michigan Militia were evident at Olson's appearance before a June 15, 1995 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee during hearings on the militia movement. Olson wore a military-style camouflage uniform while the other five militia members on his panel, including another member of the Michigan Militia, all wore coats and ties. Olson's uniform helped to reinforce the message that he is a threat; a message that he desires to be heard loud and clear by the government. As Olson explains: When somebody says, 'well, take the uniform off and put a suit on; lay down the gun and pick up a briefcase, you can be more effective'. Well, that's the words of a politician. I don't want to change things politically, even though on the large scale the militia is a political movement.... To understand why Olson has rejected political participation and why his views differ so radically from those of the Michigan Militia, it is necessary to understand how political participation fits (or in this case, doesn't fit) within his larger worldview. Olson believes that republican governments undergo a natural evolution characterized by the ever increasing growth in governmental corruption and the increasing alienation of the people from their government. In Olson's view, 'the ancient principle or pattern of government is that it will eventually become corrupted' and governments will naturally become more and more corrupt until the abuses become unendurable. At this point, according to Olson, 'there seems to be a clock or a natural order that brings us to a place where the people can no longer endure the continued abuses'. Olson believes that this clock or natural order has a cycle of about 200 years. According to Olson, we are now reaching a stage where the abuses are becoming intolerable, where 'all three branches (have) become corrupted completely'. As Olson describes it: We are seeing, for example, the Supreme Court making laws in violation of the legislature. We are seeing Congress winking at corruption and being involved themselves in corruption. We are seeing a President who is ruling by executive order, by decree, circumventing the Congress altogether...And that is what's happening. We begin to see this erosion of our democracy, where the people rule the government, to totalitarianism or fascism where the government rules the people and we are beginning to see that more and more. As this corruption intensifies, a series of steps must be taken by the people in response to increasing governmental corruption and tyranny: first, the voting process; second, the threat of armed resistance; and, third, active resistance and revolution: ...number one, the political process, through the voting box, the ballot; number two, through a threat, just threat - write that down; and three, revolution. And revolution is extreme politics. It is an extreme way of controlling government. But you can also control government with threats. Olson believes that the first step, the voting process, is no longer effective. He views corruption as so pervasive that no one who becomes part of the system can avoid becoming part of the problem: We've got good men and women who are going into politics and I applaud their ambition. But the reality of it is that they go up to Washington and they get caught, choked in the smog of confusion and corruption. They become caught in the gears of that machine and, there inside the machine, they can no longer extract themselves far enough to see objectively what the problem is. For Olson, all groups that participate in the political process are likely to be corrupted, even militias: I am very close to militia leaders who agree with me, who are true militia indeed and have not pandered to political interests. But those who have gone over into the political realm, who simply are what I call 'tabletop' militia or else 'militias of ideas' I don't have anything to do with them. In Olson's view, citizen militias become essential at the point when the voting process ceases to be an effective means of controlling government. He believes we have reached that point and that the militia must now serve two roles: for the present, the militia must be a visible threat to the government; for the future, the militia must prepare to serve as the basis for the reconstruction of a better society. Because the government is completely corrupted, the militia must serve as a threat in order to make the corrupt government 'take a deep breath and reconsider what they are doing'. In Olson's view, the failure of the electoral process to be an effective check on the government forces the people to use the threat of armed resistance as a secondary means of limiting government abuses: We all realize that the only way we are going to control government now is through a threat that the people will rise up against it. The only thing holding back the feds, we believe, is that the people, that the militia is still training, that we are still active and we are still well-armed. Just as it is the citizens' duty in the first stage to control government through the voting process, the visible show of force by militia at this second stage constitutes the fulfillment of the citizens' duty to control government through 'threat'. Since the government will not feel threatened by an underground enemy or an enemy whose strength and power is underestimated or unknown, visibility is essential in this second stage. Being a visible threat is the only way for the militia to send the message to the government and slow the ever-increasing levels of tyranny. For Olson, the militia 'threat' to the government is a prelude to military engagement in the third and final stage: revolution. In Olson's words: You have got to be public, you have got to be open, you've got to be visible...If you believe that what you are doing is correct and lawful historically and according to the natural order, then why separate? I want to jump into the fray. I'm not running from a fight. I'll go where the sound of the battle is taking place. Despite the importance placed on engaging and controlling the government through a visible threat, Olson sees the course of growing tyranny - and the response of revolution - as inevitable. The increasingly tyrannical behavior of government can be slowed, but it cannot be stopped. As Olson says, 'Eventually they are going to cross the line and when they do, you are going to see more and more reprisal against the government'. For Olson, that reprisal has but one final outcome: revolution: We're simply at a point now where the dynamics of this whole business are leading us to revolution - it's unavoidable now. But it has to come...after a long train of abuses...establishes the evidence that we are heading toward absolute despotism then it is the people's right and their duty to throw off that government to establish themselves future guardians for their own welfare and safety. That's where we're going now. Not only does Olson see revolution as the inevitable result of the natural political cycle, he views our present political system as nearing the end of that cycle. Olson believes either the government will collapse under the weight of its own corruption or the people will revolt in opposition to intolerable levels of corruption and oppression. In either case, an overturning of the present political system is close at hand. Olson sees the militia movement as the foundation upon which to create a new political framework after the revolution. He sees a new nation developing out of the militia movement in much the same way that the American nation developed out of the American revolutionaries' resistance to British rule. Olson has attempted to create such a framework, calling his organization 'the Republican Provisional Government of the Third Continental Congress'. As Olson describes its purposes: We're actually trying to put together a provisional government that will ferry us across to safety when this present regime collapses under the weight of its own corruption. Thus, for Olson, the militia is not only a present-day threat to limit an abusive government, but an important preparation for a future crisis he perceives to be imminent. Militias provide the framework for creation of a new political system after the collapse or overthrow of the present system. Because Olson views the political system as completely corrupt and the growth of oppression inevitable, he views the collapse of that system as desirable. In his view, that collapse will limit further abuses against the people and allow the militia movement to begin with the task of restructuring society under a new, and more responsive, system of government. -- ***************************************************** "The wealthiest 358 individuals in the world, all of them billionaires, collectively own as much wealth as 45% of humanity." -- The United Nations Development Program Report '96 -- ***************************************************** The world's 477 billionaires have as much wealth as 52 percent of humanity. -- According to the Economic Policy Institute, in 1997 -- ***************************************************** Next message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: "The horse's mouth - Militia part 2 of 3" Previous message: Jon Fine: "Re: Calif turnout?" This archive was generated by hypermail 1.02. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
