Although certain forms of the militia ring of communist class struggle, the bottom line is the loss of gun rights and duty recognition from the ruling elite. PEople owning guns respect rich people and a ruling class, there is no envy. Quite the contrary, the gun owners are totaly against the welfare state that would satisfy such envy, and most specificaly, the welfare mindset that relies on a police force instead of one'S own will to defend against crimes and terrorism.
Rural New Englanders have launched a "blood and soil" separatist movement of their own. Carolyn Chute's Second Maine Militia, a group that has mixed right-wing, left-wing, and green politics, as well as regional ethnic identity and national separatism, into a 500+ man armed formation based in Northern New England and Canada's eastern provinces, re-released a manifesto calling for people in New England and Canada to revolt and create a new nation - the New Atlantic Confederacy - independent of either government, should the impending war on terrorism cause the central government to lose the ability to maintain control in America's more remote rural areas. Her movement is explicitly pro-gun and anti-capitalist, and deals regularly with other "right-wing" militia organization active in the area. As Chute put it in a 2000 interview
The above is an indication of dangerous infiltration of the left into the militia. Those people can work to either cause trouble at the expense of gun rights for gun owners, if not, hedge their bets and use some militias as useful idiots in a class struggle revolution - something the rightist militia is against. The bottom line is that the militia is there to avoid reliance on the welfare state and social police "protection" welfare. To be forced into welfare is against the basic inalienable tenets. One legitimately looks over another one if that one lets the other one manage on its own for its own survival and autonomous freedom. I trust that our government is not so decadent that it would initiate attacks on the militia to create a rational for global disarmament. Given the flourishing of peace processes left and right, it seems unlikely that the government has the guts of creating any trouble of significance.
The main threat right now is Jihadic and leftist domestic terrorism and the militias should offer instead the government volunteer help to guard our borders. I think it is doable, because this war on terrorism is going to be very costly, and the government will have to rely on a volunteer force that the militia can very well fulfill. Contrary to that Pravda article, I do not link domestic unrest and rumblings to the militia and a government crack down. Quite the contrary, it is government open border policy stupidity that is opening up ourselves for domestic unrest.
We can hardly blame the media for doing what they can to launder the image of those they wish to promote. They are, first and foremost, leftist partisans, dedicated to the overthrow of our way of life.
Expecting anything else from them would be foolish.
Although they doubtless hate to concede the point, they're pragmatic enough to realize that it's probably best not to chart, on a map, the election victories of a Red, in red.
They correctly assume that this will result in a steady barrage of what they would consider to be 'cheap shots' taken at their (and at their candidate's) expense.
But I don't believe that they were always this circumspect.
If memory serves me, there once was a time when 'Red meant red' on media election maps. I remember CBS, in the late 60's using the colors blue and red in a less disingenuous way.
My question is, does anybody else remember this? Did the media shift the colors used to portray the two main parties? (an act that would be enormously telling, if it occurred) And, if so, when did it occur and was the shift more or less simultaneous for all of the 'networks'?
regards, Life member GOA. Patron member NRA and proud member of one or more "Bubbas' Hunting Club!"