The Militias We Stopped Talking About

Wishing you and yours a very pleasant Memorial Day!

I hope we're approaching a time when we can celebrate it without the disdain, frustration, embarrassment, and outright abuse our own government has been inflicting on its citizens. We've earned more than this. We've also let our greatness lull us into a false sense of safety, and some are more than happy to fill that void.

It will get better. We will come out of this stronger. And wiser.

A few years ago, illegal paramilitary militias were widely described by federal law enforcement as one of the most serious domestic security threats in the United States. The FBI repeatedly warned about anti-government extremist groups, armed militias, and politically motivated violence. News stories were common. Congressional hearings were held. Arrests made headlines.

Then something curious happened.

We stopped hearing about them.

That silence does not mean the militias disappeared. It means the story changed.

Today I saw a news piece: "War widens as Israeli and US planes pound Iran and Tehran and its proxies hit back"

Iran is attacked by a foreign enemy. Militias respond in defense of their homeland. That is how militias are supposed to function historically.

In the United States, too many private militias have turned inward, seeing their own government as the enemy. Instead of national defense, they reflect a toxic subculture of anti-government extremism.

A militia that prepares to fight its own country is not a defense force. It is something else entirely.

The Quiet Threat

By 2024 and 2025, federal assessments still categorized militia-style extremists under the broader heading of domestic violent extremism, a category that includes anti-government groups and individuals who believe violence against the state is justified.

Security experts continued to warn that domestic extremism posed a greater day-to-day risk than foreign terrorism.

But public attention faded.

Large groups stopped marching as openly. Fewer armed demonstrations made national headlines. The big militia names that dominated the news after January 6 became less visible.

It looked like the problem had gone away.

It hadn't.

From Organizations to Individuals

One major change is structural.

Earlier militia movements often organized in visible groups with leadership hierarchies, training events, and public messaging. Today, the movement is more fragmented.

Instead of large organizations, analysts increasingly describe:

• Small independent cells

• Loosely affiliated networks

• Individuals radicalized online

• Informal local groups

This makes the threat harder to track and easier to overlook.

When there is no central organization, there is nothing obvious for the public to notice.

But decentralized movements can be more unpredictable than organized ones.

Less Attention Does Not Mean Less Risk

Another reason militias faded from the headlines is that government priorities appear to have shifted.

Some federal programs that monitored domestic extremism have been reduced or reorganized. Staffing and resources directed at domestic terrorism investigations have reportedly declined.

This does not necessarily mean the threat is gone.

It means fewer public briefings, fewer press releases, and fewer visible investigations.

In other words, less noise does not equal less danger.

Anti-Government Extremism Remains

The core ideology that drives militia movements has not disappeared.

Militia movements historically form around a belief that the federal government is illegitimate or tyrannical. That worldview still exists and in some cases has spread more widely than before.

Ironically, the less visible militias become, the more their ideas may blend into broader political culture.

Formal organizations may shrink while the mindset survives.

History suggests this pattern is common. Extremist movements often become less visible before they reappear in new forms.

Private militias made sense in the 18th century, when the United States had no real standing army.

They became obsolete once America developed a professional military and especially after the National Guard was created as the official organized militia.

Today the United States already has what the Constitution envisioned: a trained militia under civilian control.

Private militias are not a necessity. They are a leftover idea from a country that no longer exists.

To make it painfully clear to these groups and to Americans at large:

Once the National Guard became the constitutional militia, private militias became unconstitutional. Illegal.

The Constitution authorizes militias under government authority, not private armies acting on their own. This is reflected in the Second Amendment itself:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

For most of American history, the Second Amendment was understood as supporting a well regulated militia under public authority, not independent armed groups. Courts, historians, and legal scholars generally treated it as a civic responsibility tied to national defense.

That interpretation began to change in the late twentieth century. Beginning in the 1970s and accelerating in the 1980s and 1990s, political movements and gun-rights organizations promoted a new interpretation that emphasized an individual right to bear arms independent of militia service. This shift was partly a reaction to social unrest, distrust of government after Vietnam and Watergate, and fears of federal overreach.

Advocacy groups funded research, legal arguments, and public campaigns to promote this view. Over time, the new interpretation moved from political activism into legal theory and eventually into court decisions.

The result was a major historical shift: the Second Amendment increasingly came to be understood as an individual right rather than primarily a framework for a regulated militia.

But the Constitution still provides for militias under government authority. It does not authorize private armies acting on their own initiative.

Then the NRA under Wayne LaPierre lost its damned mind. What happened to him and the NRA? 

When people say “the NRA under Wayne LaPierre lost its damned mind,” they’re usually talking about two different things that happened at the same time:

1. A political and ideological shift

2. A leadership and corruption collapse

Both are real — and together they explain what happened.

A New York jury found LaPierre liable for financial mismanagement and misuse of millions of dollars, ordering him to repay large sums. For wealth and power, he weaponized the NRA using and abusing the 2nd Amendment. 

He resigned in 2024 shortly before the trial began.

A court later banned him from NRA leadership for ten years.

This is going on in our government today with toxic conservatism running amuck. 

It is the same pattern that can be seen again today under POTUS 47, Donald Trump...a convicted felon, long associated with criminal investigations, and an increasingly autocratic political figure. He has also been found liable in court for sexual abuse, and further revelations may yet emerge regarding his associations and the Epstein investigations.

We are seeing the presidency used in ways that test constitutional limits, while a Republican-controlled Congress largely falls in line with his agenda rather than acting as an independent check on executive power.

The result is a level of corruption and concentration of power unprecedented in modern American history.

The Real Question

The real question is not whether militias exist.

They do.

The real question is whether we are paying attention.

Only a few years ago, illegal paramilitary groups were described as one of the leading domestic threats facing the United States.

Today, they receive far less attention.

But quiet movements do not necessarily mean peaceful ones.

Sometimes it just means they are preparing.

Something Worth Watching

Illegal militias occupy a strange space in American law and culture. Many states prohibit private paramilitary activity, yet armed groups continue to organize in gray areas of legality.

They do not disappear simply because the news cycle moves on.

If anything, history suggests that movements ignored too long tend to return in unexpected ways.

The militias we stopped talking about may still be there.

And that may be exactly the point.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of  Claude AI 

---

JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

The World’s Most Dangerous Countries to America and Why Venezuela Matters

When Americans think of the most dangerous countries to our national security, four names dominate the conversation. China is the strategic rival of the century, with unmatched economic scale and rapidly advancing military power. Russia remains a reckless nuclear actor, disrupting Europe and cyberspace alike. Iran destabilizes the Middle East through proxy wars and nuclear ambitions. North Korea is unpredictable, brandishing missiles and warheads as bargaining chips.

These are the top-tier threats: nations capable of projecting force across the globe and directly challenging U.S. influence.

Yet not all danger comes from global powers. Some comes from unstable neighbors whose alliances with hostile states put them right on America’s doorstep. That is where Venezuela looms larger than many realize.

---

Venezuela: A Resource-Rich Crisis

Venezuela possesses the world’s largest proven oil reserves and vast deposits of gold, coltan, and diamonds. Its position on the Caribbean makes it strategically vital, with shipping routes that connect directly to U.S. trade and energy security.

But instead of prosperity, Venezuela has descended into collapse under Nicolás Maduro. The country has suffered hyperinflation, repression, and humanitarian breakdown. More than seven million people have fled, destabilizing neighbors and fueling migration toward the U.S.

---

A Proxy for Adversaries

Venezuela is not simply a failed state. It is a proxy for America’s most determined rivals.

• Russia provides weapons, training, and diplomatic protection.

• China has sunk billions into oil projects and infrastructure, ensuring long-term influence.

• Iran supplies fuel and covert networks that allow Caracas to survive sanctions.

Together, these ties create a beachhead for U.S. adversaries in the Western Hemisphere — a replay of Cold War dynamics in our own backyard.

---

Crime, Chaos, and Militias

Venezuela is also a hub for illicit activity. Its military is accused of running cocaine trafficking networks under the “Cartel of the Suns.” Armed groups control illegal gold mines. Maduro has empowered militias loyal only to him, creating a parallel security structure.

This is not just internal dysfunction. It spills into regional instability and directly impacts U.S. security through trafficking, migration, and organized crime.

---

Flashpoints and the Hidden War

The situation is no longer theoretical. It has already turned violent.

• Earlier this year, the United States carried out a “kinetic strike” on a suspected Venezuelan-linked drug trafficking boat, killing 11. The Trump administration framed it as counternarcotics, but the scale of the action suggests more may be going on than has been admitted. Was it only a drug interdiction, or was it a signal to adversaries using Venezuela as cover? The lack of transparency raises questions about whether we are already sliding into a shadow war in the Caribbean.

• Venezuelan F-16s buzzed a U.S. destroyer in a dangerous aerial confrontation, showing Caracas is willing to escalate.

• Maduro mobilized militias and declared Venezuela on a war footing, framing U.S. actions as preparation for regime change.

These incidents hint at a wider game — one where drug interdiction may mask deeper operations against adversary influence in the hemisphere.

---

Policy and the Hard Choices Ahead

Venezuela is not the most dangerous country in the world to America. That title belongs to China under Xi Jinping, whose decisions shape the only true peer competitor to the U.S. But Venezuela may be the most dangerous close to home.

Sanctions and diplomacy remain necessary tools, but they cannot stand alone. Washington must be prepared for covert measures to undermine criminal and foreign-backed networks inside Venezuela. It must also be willing to use precise kinetic actions when adversary infrastructure threatens U.S. security. The strike on the drug boat shows that this may already be happening, even if the official story downplays its true purpose. But is Trump handling this in a sane and effective way? Because he's not very good at taking in the whole picture.

In truth, America may already be in a low-grade covert conflict with Venezuela and its backers. The drug boat strike that killed eleven is not just counternarcotics; it signals that U.S. forces are willing to act decisively in contested waters. 

With Russia, China, and Iran using Caracas as a foothold, the risk is not only Venezuelan instability but an expanding shadow war in the hemisphere. The question is not whether conflict will come, but whether Washington will acknowledge it and prepare for the fight already underway.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

America Private Civilian (non) Militia Playtime Armed Forces (APCnMPAF)

We should all be sick by now of the abusive nonsense by conspiracy paranoids, extremists, Republicans, conservatives, agents of our enemies, and agents of profit seeking special interests pushing ridiculous agendas.

This nonsense about the 2nd Amendment by those who cannot understand the difference between their current situation in a powerful and well established America and that of the original and tentative America founded through our US Constitution and the need not that much later on for Amendments to that Constitution.

Look, entire books have been written about this subject. The Supreme Court even unwisely ruled on it. I'm not saying I'm smarter then them, but partisan issues to come to bear there. I've read some of the books on this, many articles and papers and researched this to my own satisfaction as a university educated and professional researcher. Which means I'm not seeking to prove my beliefs, but to find the truth. Remember that? Truth? I'm not going to expend lots of verbiage here on this. I'm going to try to simplify it for those who want a quick answer and for those (probably those against what I'm saying here) who seem to have trouble understanding the second amendment.

Or even the simplest of concepts. Like how a Pres. Trump is bad for America (yes, worse than even a Pres. Hillary Clinton from what we're seeing, far, far so much worse) as well as the entire world. But that's another topic where now several (not one or two) government investigations are under way.

Those who cannot understand this are our ignorant and apparently poorly uneducated (or if not, then simply disingenuous) Americans who appear to be willing (like our current travesty in Pres. Trump) to lie, cheat or steal in order to keep their favorite toys (military assault weapons) easily available to literally it would seem, anyone.

Do we need to appeal the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights?

Because those who are abusing its meaning and intent now 200 years after it was written, seem to have no idea what it means or indicates? Do we need to restate its meaning? I'm beginning to think we need to restate it merely so these people can understand clear and modern English.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Civilian so called militias are not the militia indicated in the 2nd Amendment at all. The intended may be referring to, using civilians as militia, but it refers to a top down not a bottom up, entity.

Also, to bear arms seems to confuse some people. For instance, we need to define, bear and to bear.

In the Oxford Dictionary, it means to bring something to bear, which is a good point in relevance.

That is to bear down upon or aim at. To bear arms therefore indicates taking up a weapon against someone seen as enemy with intent to aim at and kill them. As in martial actions against another. But as governed by the state.

Even if militias organize, practice (some would say for many of them, playing at) for the good of the state in the case of the GOVERNMENT needing them for the security of a free state.

Not the security of the civilians against a free state as many now believe. Rather to be ruled over or governed by the state over those militias.

That means that a  militia is allowed to be prepared, but not against the state, as many of them feel they are. Rather FOR the states and against as should most reasonably be considered, all enemies foreign and domestic! We now actually have to concern ourselves with whether this includes our current Pres. Trump and his administration. Brought to us by many of the same people who cannot understand the meaning and intent of the amendment in question here.

There is also the point that one does not bear arms against a rabbit. Therefore it does not actually indicate hunting as so many claim.

Also, arms as in the right of the people to keep and bear seems to confuse too many people. Far too many people, actually. But then that gets into our abuse and lack of support of our educational system. We have been dumbing down Americans who cannot afford a decent education for decades now.

And here we have the results. Uneducated if not outright stupid Americans voting against their best interests and unable to understand what the Founding Fathers thought was one of the simplest of amendments. But one they knew people would misinterpret, which is why it was worded as it was. Also though, worded as it was merely because they wanted to get something passed and put into law, accepted by all the states then voting. And they did.

Though I doubt they could have foreseen the nonsense we're seeing today they more assuredly saw some of it. But only perhaps, a third of it. I doubt they foresaw modern assault weapons or even the self contained firearm cartridge for that matter.

The bottom line here is that the second amendment is for the government, not the citizens.

We also have to be wary of religious militias. Christian militias for instance. We've seen what so called Muslim militias can do in other countries in the form of ISIS. The last thing we need in this country are religious based militias. Or even conservative, right wing, ultra extremist militias.

Granted, although some militias may take themselves seriously and professionally, we still have to deal with the many that do not. Some of which shouldn't even be allowed near a gun to begin with. And even the professional militias, still need to be governed under the government and not aligned against it, as so many covertly (or overtly) are.

And that is its orientation. In now having a standing army, we no longer need militias. Therefore that amendment no longer has any real standing or need.

It may be sad that Thomas Jefferson was against America even having a standing army, as it begets empire building (actually kind of as we've been seeing).

There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation, and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors, that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot, but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army. Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789, 549

Yet, in over two hundreds years we're not seeing this happening. So it's become a moot point. Was Jefferson wrong in his concern? No. But the system as designed would seem to be working well enough that it has not become an issue.

And let's not forget other wise things Jefferson said:

What then is the issue? The second amendment. Not really so much that of itself, as those who wish to twist its meaning and bastardize its intent for their own reward (NRA, gun industry, conservatives) and benefit (maintaining power, self aggrandizement, financial reward).

There are several things we now need to address and remove in our government because of the abuses we've been seeing that have led us here to this dysfunctional point.

First and longest term, we need to address our educational system. Free school at least up through a two year degree...for all. Better, four year colleges should be free, and more of them (and less (and NO more or any at all, private corporate) prisons, which is entirely another important topic).

Removal of the Gerrymandering process which has corrupted our system for far too long.

Removal of the electoral process which again has corrupted out system for far too long.

And finally, removal or rewording of the second amendment which has been corrupted in meaning and intent through disingenuous definitions by mostly conservative interests and greed.

I would argue for removal of the amendment since until we address the other two issues (three if you wisely include fixing and bolstering our educational systems which will take at least a generation to return wisdom to our culture in properly educated citizens), we will find any attempt at rewording the second amendment will merely further corrupt it in the dysfunctional direction I have just pointed out above.

So here we are where we now need to move forward and stop the slaughter at home of civilians by civilians.

Or will we simply remain at the current and dysfunctional status quo, which conservatives so love and have forced into place while we all know that moving forward, being progressive, is the only way to progress and to move forward.