Charlie Daniels:

“Something’s wrong, and we all know it.”



Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., from his book, Three Rights

For if The PEOPLE enjoy a right to form their own nation in the first place, they certainly possess a right to renew its vitality from time to time as the need arises.”   –  Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.


Part One – General Intro

The Mental Militia is an association of conscientious people who value freedom and liberty in the widest context. We like that brand of Liberty which was originally expounded by the authors of the Colonists’ Declaration of Independence.

Mentalitians are people who believe that “consciousness works!”, and who prefer the art of reason over violence as a solution to international, national, societal, and cultural problems. We see an apparent and lucid truth in the wisdom of dispelling illusions of mass-mentality by first coming to know and to understand the content of one’s mind. We feel that a healthy, integrated, well-oriented mind produces physical renderings in actions and deeds within society and culture which reflect outwardly the unity and cohesiveness of peace, love, prosperity and happiness.

The Mental Militia presupposes that to achieve a healthy mind in today’s “civilized” world, anyone might begin by accumulating a wide and diversified field of truthful knowledge.  In fact, the initial premise held by all original members back in 1999 was to cherish diversity in the world of ideas. We all agreed that knowledge of truth is what remains once all illusion has been removed. Therefore, The Mental Militia seeks the gathering of diverse thought, historic fact, philosophical view, intuitive and creative thinking, emotional input, and analysis of public events involving spirituality, psychology, economics, cultural mores, science, governance, art, history, and politics.  The Mental Militia is neither “Left” nor “Right”. Just as the Constitution extends its protections equally to one and all, so does The Mental Militia embrace all fields of pertinent ideation. Mentalitians are all about “Live and Let Live“, but we’re keen on Learning as we Live.

Part Two – MindWar

A state of MindWar exists in today’s world. The target consists of the more than seven billion individual minds on Planet Earth, including your and my personal minds. The Mental Militia is an answer in kind to the aggression of colluded corporate and governmental Psychological Operations. We are exploring psychological — mental — solutions to the massive propaganda being sold to the human race by manipulative powers which now can be identified.

Part Three — Self Ownership

The Mental Militia holds with the Ghost of Thomas Jefferson that the mystery of personal sovereignty arrives within each soul born on Earth, bundled as it were with other “Unalienable Rights”. This marks the lawful boundary between inherent sovereignty and an external authority imposed by any collective such as a social institution or a “government”. Self ownership is possible only when one owns oneself, and owning oneself is possible only when one first owns one’s own mind.

Why would we speak of owning one’s mind? That is a generality, of course. What we are getting at is the concept of owning the “content” of one’s mind, which would include perceptions, memories, knowledge, all types of thought, emotions or “feelings”. Such is the stuff of the mind.

An external “authority” does not need to own one’s mind in order to use one’s mind to influence one’s actions, or, as the Geo-Spatial Intelligence Foundation would put it, influence one’s “ABI” (activity-based intelligence) factors by mentally manipulating one’s perceptions at the sub-conscious level, or the level of what Edward Bernays dubbed “the group mind”. (The collective consciousness of a nationality, ethnicity, religious belief system, etc etc.) It is also referred to as the “mass-mind”.

If Wall Street and Madison Avenue are plugged into the General government in Washington D.C. (WDC), and WDC is also plugged into Hollywood, the Press, and the mass-media, and all of the foregoing are plugged into the U.S. Intelligence community, we are not surprised in being confronted with the realization that much of our thought processes are being shaped or forged by external stimuli. It is important for any Mentalitian to practice the habit of monitoring the content of one’s mind. One is to observe with full awareness the activity of one’s incessant thought processes, and learn to recognize and apprehend thoughts which would lessen or diminish the quality of one’s being. This is the beginning of morality at the personal level. To achieve morality one must be free to choose it and follow that choice by establishing one’s personal sovereignty, which produces the awareness of self-hood, which enhances the choice to be free of external authorities. The individual human being has that potential, and those of the collectivist mindset are well aware that the individual has that; hence the angst riding ever forth in the collectivist mindset. Collectivists seek in their collective nature the means of preventing the individual human being from achieving self-ownership. The reason why is simple: Collectivists are Statists who invariably prefer the centralization of government, and the primary obstacle to centralizing power is the self-owning human soul. External forces and powers cannot control a free man who has found that the highest authority indwells his own being, in his personal liberty and life.  History reveals an overview of that trans-generational struggle down through the Centuries.

Part Four — The Militia System

At the time in history wherein thirteen British Colonies rebelled against the authority of the Throne in England, threw off the British government and established their sovereignty as nation-States, the States delegated men to create the Articles of Confederation. In less than a decade, however, the Articles of Confederation were shelved, so to speak, and all attention focused upon the creation of the Constitution for the united States of America. We refer to those bygone days from our past as the “Founding Generation”, inclusive of all the Colonists who comprised the culture and social norms in which the conceptualization which framed the Constitution was borne in a vision of Liberty. The system by which they lived was the Militia System, and it served them well.

A central point of interest in the culture of the Founders’ day was the universal requirement across all the newly-formed States of the citizen’s duty to his State’s Militia.  As members in the Militia of their day, the average citizen was indeed a viable part of his local government, and a defender at the ready for his local government. As Pastor Chuck Baldwin has pointed out, the Founders carried their firearms to Church on Sundays, and it was common to carry their firearms about anywhere they went. To do so was not only accepted, but was expected. It was the culture, in many cases it was the law of the land, and it set the mark for their society and their relationship to their new governments. Such was a culture which did not depend upon “government services” to lead their daily lives.

As part of the process of claiming full ownership of our individual minds The Mental Militia supports a return to the moral code, the social code, and generally even the lawful code of the Founding generation. It is our heritage and the foundation of American culture. It includes the right to self defense as another of those “Unalienable Rights” to which Jefferson alluded.

Part Five — Tying all of the above together

In describing for you a sketch of who and what The Mental Militia is, we could say that all of us make an art of living life. We are common people whom the media and entertainment communities, as well as the national government, would  paint as quasi-potential-terrorist-sympathizers, or worse. We do not see ourselves in that way. We eat food, sleep, have relationships, manage careers, raise families, enjoy our pleasures and comforts, read books, find our fortunes, dislike visits to the dentist’s office, support the arts, tolerate the different views of our neighbors, study the meaning of life, combat daily stresses, value morality, get sick sometimes, wonder how corrupt government really is, and, like everyone else, we form opinions. We are people who lay claim to ownership of our personal minds, our consciousness, our spirituality, and indeed our very souls, complete with our full range of “Unalienable Rights”.

We use our minds, and our motto is:  “Mind what one thinks!

We believe that liberty and freedom are fast disappearing for several obvious and also for several not-so-obvious reasons, and we are advocating a Mental Revolution world-wide. We believe that violent revolutions always lead to the need for yet another revolution, as history shows clearly. We therefore seek the awakening of mankind to personal responsibility and the Liberty which springs therefrom. One of our keenest issues is the place of “individual sovereignty” within today’s complex world of powerful governments.



5 thoughts on “About

  1. Here is a compilation from “Cal” on May 28 2016:

    If one wants to read, here is some information…

    St. George Tucker: “The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it – the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge of the extent of his own powers, without reference to his constituent?”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

    “Justice Scalia, majority opinion on Mack and Printz v. United States (1997): “It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of “dual sovereignty”…. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty”…. Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones.

    Article 1, Section 8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that “[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

    The Framers’ experience under the Articles of Confederation had persuaded them that using the States as the instruments of federal governance was both ineffectual and provocative of federal state conflict. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people.

    The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.”…

    The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. As Madison expressed it: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” ….

    This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.”

    1) Federalism has more than one dynamic. In allocating powers between the States and National Government, federalism “ ‘secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power,’ ” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181.

    It enables States to enact positive law in response to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times, and it protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that law enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 458. Federalism’s limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. In a proper case, a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism, just as injured individuals may challenge actions that transgress, e.g., separation-of-powers limitations, see, e.g., INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919. The claim need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a State’s constitutional interests, even if those interests are also implicated. Pp. 8–12. Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011) (end excerpt) Note the phrase, “…the diffusion of sovereign power”” (end quote – https://thementalmilitia.net/2015/12/05/the-clue-in-the-two-letter-word/)

    Justice Sandra Day O’Connor: “The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of the public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: “Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.”

    Mack and Printz v. United States: “The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service – and at no cost to itself – the police officers of the 50 States… Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.”

    James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

    St John Tucker: “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…”

    Thomas Jefferson: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States OR to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” (caps mine)

    Thomas Jefferson: “I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the federal government our foreign ones.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *