------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -- *******************************************************************