Militia Magazine

militia magazine
Coming soon.

Guerrillamerica gives an update.

Fair winds and following seas.

24 responses to “Militia Magazine

  1. Uncle Kenny

    Sure, just let me rush right over there and put my contact information on yet another list that the gov can scoop up and target me with. No, thanks.

  2. crestonave@aol.com

    I believe the quotation is from Patrick Henry and not Thomas Paine.

  3. Be glad to see the magazine. By the by, Keepandbeararms.com is MIA this morning. Anybody know what’s up?

  4. Anonymous

    by the mid-1700’s, especially in Massachusetts, the colonies were levying drifters, vagrants, and the otherwise unemployed into the militia for the Indian wars and for expeditions to secure more territory. At a time when survival was a full-time job for many colonists, not everyone could just leave their farms and enter into a protracted campaign against the Indians. More often than not, levying a militia member from a town meant that you were taking one man off his one-man farm.

    Drifters, vagrants, and the otherwise unemployed are by definition not working one-man farms in towns. That said, if the militia worked, this kidnapping and enslavement to fight in the colonial imperial army would have been successfully resisted. The militia doesn’t work and never worked; like voting, it is a lie to make you believe you have more control than you do.

    Perhaps the militia can be fixed?

  5. Anonymous

    My research shows that quote from Patrick Henry, not Thomas Paine.

  6. Timesailor

    Patrick Henry

  7. PUBLIC liberty my ass.
    I’m only interested in MY liberty.
    If you want to come along for the ride all you have to do is convince me you are worthy.
    Otherwise, YOU protect YOUR liberty and leave me the hell alone.

  8. RobRoySimmons

    By “militia” I think we mean to say society, which we once had before the collectivist state and television. Now we have welfare workers and stupidvision to care for and entertain us.

  9. Getting there. The Founders would be sickened by Libertarianism and its utter selfishness. By definition, a Nation is far more than this, asks far more than this, and has the right to ask far more than this. It’s not just the enforcer of contracts that Maggie Thatcher wanted. A Nation has a Culture. One Culture, not many. The Culture is the mind, the Land is the body, and the People are the blood. Multiculturalism? More than one mind in one body? That’s called Madness or Schizophrenia.

    Were the Indians the first Americans? Of course not. Call up the shade of George Washington the Indian Fighter and ask him what he thinks of that. They were a different mind and blood. We conquered them and took their land and that’s why we enjoy everything we have. Be thankful. In our Christian generosity, we let the Indians stay and enjoy the benefits of our Triumph. They aren’t thankful but it would be asking a lot to expect them to be. Except for a wise minority of them, they are part of the Grievance Coaltion that seeks to ovethrow us.

    • And here I was, thinking that minimal governance and a heavy focus on individual liberties was what made the nation great in the first place.
      Not having to endlessly slave towards the goals of the 51%.
      Not having to fight endless national wars and be robbed under fiat currency for the benefit of the national coffers.
      Your drooling servitude to a border and a flag is what’s gotten the U.S. into this problem in the first place, because if the individual exists to serve the state (the organisers of the nation) rather than vice versa then from the moment you’re born you’re nothing but a peasant, the nation being your king and the state being the lord of your province.
      With that in mind, where does a nobody from nowhere like you you get off speaking for the Founders?
      But, hey. I’m just a dumb Aussie, so take it for what it’s worth.

      • “But, hey. I’m just a dumb Aussie, so take it for what it’s worth.”

        So taken.

        With that in mind, where does a numbnuts from down under get off speaking anything concerning our Founding?

        Go get back the guns and liberty y’all meekly surrendered awhile back…..

    • “The Founders would be sickened by Libertarianism and its utter selfishness.”

      Thank you. Concur completely.

      When TSHTF, all the rugged individualists interested only in their OWN “liberty” will be rudely awakened to the true nature of their impotent isolation.

      • Jim Klein

        “When TSHTF, all the rugged individualists interested only in their OWN ‘liberty’…”

        Would it be asking too much for you to at least get it right? Any Joe with half a wit understands that if he’s going to be free, then everyone else must be too.

        Here, I’ll ask for like the 105th time—so if not the individual, then who (or what) is it that you propose to be free?

        You may consider it a complete surrender that I understand you’re simply not willing to speak for yourself, and instead are driven to speak for others. I’ll try not to press you on that any more.

        • “Would it be asking too much for you to at least get it right?”

          Would it be asking too much for you not to mistake your personal views for The Whole and Only Truth, you arrogant, self righteous nag?

          “Any Joe with half a wit understands that if he’s going to be free, then everyone else must be too.”

          I doubt that very much… if that bore even the faintest resemblance to the “reality” with which you claim such familiarity we would not be in the shape we are; and I deeply resent the inference. Ad hominem, much?

          The reason I have been ignoring your one trick baiting, and will continue hereafter to do so, is that you seldom fail to characterize me and my sentiments to suit your one trick argument, while conveniently ignoring or misstating whatever point I might be trying to make.

          Above, you quote the salient point: “rugged individualists interested only in their OWN ‘liberty’…” in which I had reference to several nearby comments by folks who repeat that position at every opportunity, and to whom my prognosis was addressed: “will be rudely awakened to the true nature of their impotent isolation.”

          Nothing could be more plain, but you insist that it’s merely another opening for you to explain to me why I’m grossly in error… by insisting that it means something else, and then finishing with a flourish of assertion and condemnation: “I understand you’re simply not willing to speak for yourself, and instead are driven to speak for others.”

          Speaking strictly for myself, although I suspect that a few others are equally tired of your ubiquitous insistence on your one and only dictum…
          I cordially invite you to give it a rest. And I do sincerely wish that your continuing test of theory against reality works out well for you, and, finally:

          “I’ll try not to press you on that any more.”

          That would be most welcome. As Jesus said, “And why behold you the mote that is in your brother’s eye, but perceive not the beam that is in your own eye?”

        • Thank god. For a moment I felt like I’d stepped into the bloody twilight zone.
          For the record, when we all “meekly surrendered” those guns I was to and from primary school monday to friday, and unfortunately didn’t have time to start a counter-revolution in between doing my home-work.
          So what I’m hearing is, you get to be a slave TO the state or a slave OF the state. Is that what the Founders had in mind? My mistake.
          The wild assumption that libertarians are bound to shirk their responsibilities when it comes to defending the nation is ridiculous nonsense. They only expect to retain the right to choose before they make the right choice, rather than being dragged on a patriotic guilt trip, or worse, conscripted to fight in dusty countries for no good reason while successive presidents rack up multi-billions dollar defence budgets to add to multi-trillion dollar national deficits.

          Ought-six, as for having given up our liberty, we may not have easy access to semi-automatic weaponry but I’m not made to watch while my kids and my wife get groped at the airport either so I’m not sure you can call trumps on that freedom bit anymore. 🙂

          So precisely when do those horrible libertarians get to say “I’m not interested in propping up the status quo.” Afghanistan? Iraq? The 2008 bailouts? All the way back to the first unconstitutional gun law or FDR’s new deal? Libertarianism is about having the right to fight for your beliefs, whether that’s under the national flag or against it. Or have you forgotten that you guys are the enemy in your own nation just now?
          Keep that in mind when you see the stars and stripes hanging from the Bradleys rolling into your home town.

  10. Dumb Aussie: people without Patriotism and incapable of collective action will end up as the slaves that have it and are capable of collective action. You Goverment now calls itself an “Asian Nation” – that doesn’t bode well for you paleface. Will it be Muslim Indonesia or the Dragon to the North? Which would you prefer, Dumb Aussie?

    Not that you care, but I said nothing about imperialism or socialism – but only the voluntary cooperation of free men. If free men refuse to do this, then a power vacuum is created. Nature abhors such vacuums. Some Dictator, either Domestic or Foreign, will soon step in to fill that gap.

    • By your rationale if my government waves the white flag in return for “regional autonomy” then my patriotic duty is to disarm and welcome my new overlords.
      Of course, a free man, a libertarian, might tell his government to slag off and fight the invaders.
      And If there aren’t enough like-minded people to win that fight then you never had much of a nation to begin with, regardless of how many flags you draped around yourself and how man slogans you chanted.

  11. Grenadier1

    What disgusts me is ignorant morons telling me I am selfish because I am a libertarian. Liberty by its very nature is completly and utterly centered on the self. I cannot “make you free” No matter how much I give and act collectively and unselfishly I cannot MAKE you free! Your a fucking retard for thinking that to be the case. YOU must accept and demand your own freedom. You have no claim to my life liberty or property in order to assert your personal freedom. I absolutly agree that we need to be organizing and acting toward a common goal but that common goal is not at odds with libertarianism.