It is understandable why the public is so taken aback at the mere mention of the “M” word. After all, we have long been conditioned that it is a dirty word, one that we would do best to remain unaffiliated with.
This conditioning has been re-enforced by the image that many militias are presenting today. The media that is put forth from the militia community demonstrates a trend that is of concern, and that is that they seem to be more focused with training that is more ‘offensive’ than ‘defensive’. The difference can be summed up as this: “Offensive” tactics are used to take control of things such as resources, infrastructure, property, or people, whereas “defensive” tactics are used to protect things, such as resources, infrastructure, property, or people. This ‘offensive’ focus can be attributed to the influence of veterans, whose military training is facilitated by an apparatus that adheres to a conquer-and-dominate foreign policy. This foreign policy, of course, requires offensive tactics, though not necessarily offensive people. It is important to note that ‘offensive’ tactics can easily translate into ‘defensive’ tactics, but not the other way around. Every militant needs to ask themselves, “What resources, infrastructure, property, or people am I protecting?”
If the answer in anyway resembles, “mine”, “my own” or, well, “mine”, then we are in deep trouble, for the willingness to act coupled with selfishness leads militants and entire movements down a dark path. If, on the other hand, the answer is, “ours”, or dare I say, “theirs”, then we may be on the right track.
The militia is integral to resistance as both a mechanism of protecting the infrastructure that sustains autonomous communities and cultures, as well as a mechanism of disabling and disrupting the infrastructure of the dominant culture that oppresses them. Contemporary militias do not encompass this fundamental function; instead serving as an excuse for hyper-masculine paramilitary behavior in raw form and working in a direction that is counter to the influence that a coherent all-inclusive, disorganized militia can and should have within their communities.
What has not changed is the nature of the militant themselves. For those who do not know:
Militant- “Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause”
Or my own definition
Militant- “One who asserts autonomy on behalf of themselves or others, either alone or with others”
In either case, the militant is not defined by a group, a uniform, or a title. It is not defined by ones gender, sexuality, politics, or color, or nationality, or tribe. In fact, militancy is a personality trait that is directly correlated to the moral fiber that is unique to each individual. Whether or not a population supports a militia is not decided alone on the nature of their militancy, rather it is decided by whether or not those militants are serving a cause that like-minded people (though not necessarily militants) can identify with using tactics that are clear in purpose and that are effective at meeting those ends. Indeed, contemporary militias do little to encapsulate their pertinence. Most contemporary militias are in pursuit of defending and restoring the US Constitution, with the apparent belief that it could not possibly fail them (and everybody else) twice, and that liberty and self-governance are simply not possible without it. Others are progenerated from the rather tangible threat of being raided at gunpoint by Hunter-Killer Teams with armed drone support and being secretly tortured and imprisoned indefinitely (if not killed) without so much as a trial. And then there are the Southwestern militias that are largely driven by xenophobia and the desire to ‘re-Americanize” the bioregions of the Southwest. Some even express the sole purpose of fighting “Rahowa”, or Racial Holy War.
Fortunately there is a new breed of militant emerging within our Bioregion, one that is not tainted with racism, nationalism, or sexism; a militia not driven by the hatred of fellow humans and creatures, but hatred of institutionalized violence, war-for-profit, exploitation and domination. They are the kind of militant that could only have evolved in this bioregion. They are of all ages, genders, and of all colors, all shapes, all sizes and all faiths. They do not discuss without consideration. They do not assemble without sincerity. They do not operate without provocation. They do not have leaders. Many of them only know a handful of others like them, and it is better that way. They understand that militancy is who they are, not what they do, and they know that militancy is a broad arena that involves many tactics, and many avenues of approach. They are keen on the threats to the bioregion from within and work to combat them. They fight not for a flag, or for money, or for political interests. They fight for this land, air, and water. They fight for the health, autonomy, and safety of our posterity against everything from patented food and poisoned aquifers to state-sponsored murder in our era of gunpoint compliance. They are armed and unarmed, passive and active. There is no stereotype, and only one goal: to sustain and protect the infrastructure and resources that make our autonomy possible.