Direct Link to Latest News


Young Alaskan Urges Alternative Government

March 18, 2010

cox.jpgby Toby Moreland


-Schaeffer Cox, 26, a bright and charismatic gun rights activist, told the Freedom Festival in northern Idaho in December not to be afraid of the word "militia."

 "We need to take that word back from the people who demonize it," said Cox.

He emphasizes he's not talking about an "isolated little clique of angry people. It's got to be a group of people brought together by respect and a power to act."

Cox is the organizer of both the "Second Amendment Task Force" (over 7,000 members) and "The Alaska Peacemakers Militia" of Fairbanks, Alaska.

In Montana, Cox said, "Instead of starting a third party, we started a second government," complete with a judicial branch (a common law court run on silver), a defense system (a well-trained militia of over 3,500), and an executive, Cox himself. 

He says, "anything beyond these three is just a tool of tyranny.  That's all you really need to protect the rights of free people."

In a tightly knit, rural community like Fairbanks, he's probably right.  Cox has traveled to various parts of the country informing fellow patriots about his organizations and urging them to sign his declaration and establish similar "second governments" of their own.  The U.S. Constitution and self-defense rights in particular are at the heart of this declaration.

Cox carefully adds a disclaimer to his pitch stating, "it cannot be created in order to attack or antagonize the existing government.  Let them crap in their own nest and bring themselves down under their own power.  We're not there to do that to them.  But, as it comes out that they're a freaking joke, here's an alternative." 

It is his belief that the U.S. federal government will soon fail, and that "we have a duty to protect some sort of order even if it is just amongst ourselves" against anarchy or the "tyranny of the mob."   This proactive approach is admirable, but does he understand the big picture?

Who is Our Enemy? 

Cox defines our enemy as "basically federal government and people who take their money...and the international super-states..." He continues, "we don't need to gun down the beast...the only entity that is strong enough to destroy this beast of tyranny is that beast of tyranny, and they are doing a plenty good job without our help...the system is beyond repair." 

Cox operates under the assumption that the government is the enemy of the people, and indicates that he hopes it will collapse.  Like so many Americans, he cannot fathom a scenario where a threat to U.S. soil could emerge in the form of a foreign military.  Also, I wonder if he has considered that a staged "civil war" may be exactly what is being planned in order to dissolve the United States.

Cox says, "I don't understand all of the ins and outs of this giant monster coming our way and bulldozing over our freedom, but I feel in my gut a resentment, and I think you identify with this...that you shouldn't have to understand all that stuff, and that our rights are rights."

He says, "Let's be characterized by what we love and work towards that, and let what we hate run its own natural course." 

Are We Being Cast As the Enemy?

For those of us who value the Constitution and the Bill of RIghts, emulating our forefathers by forming a militia may not seem so far fetched.  However, to the urban masses and liberal media pundits, what feelings are conjured by groups like Schaeffer Cox's?

Is there a possibility of portraying militias as a threat to the American people?  Certainly, and this is already happening.  Is there a possibility that some militia or "second government" advocates are really covert agents promoting violence or separation?  Absolutely.

Do militias, and 2nd Amendment defenders in general, put a violent face on legitimate concerns of preserving ALL of our Constitutional rights?  Some would think so. 

Would Americans believe a false-flag attack caused by U.S. citizens that believe their enemy to be "anyone who would take away from us the freedoms that God gave us" as Schaeffer Cox does?  Probably.

Cox says, "I am not against spilling blood for freedom.  I will kill for liberty.  Everybody asks 'would you die for liberty?'  That's not really the right question to ask.  The right question to ask is 'would you kill for liberty?' because if you would kill for liberty it assumes that you would die for liberty."

And later, he says that he fears on his deathbed "handing my sword to my son - a sword that never saw blood - and saying, 'son, you go do what I was never able to even look at...and it's way worse now son.'"

Noble words but is this the right course of action?


Latest ---  Cops Harassing Cox

Comments for "Young Alaskan Urges Alternative Government"

Walt said (March 21, 2010):

I believe the solution lies in the Christian church, but due to my current selfishness to not destroy all of my business endeavors and be attacked by the federal, state and local authorities, I remain silent. I think the video by Schaeffer Cox is exactly what I'm thinking...the system is so big, powerful and its threat of force sends me and others into submission. I'm not yet ready to loose 25 years of work when the hammer is about to fall.

As a Jewish Christian (not a messianic Jew), I cannot discuss the solution to the problem without serious consequences with my role at the World Bank, and elsewhere. It is business suicide and I am not in favor of suicide in any fashion. Without a clearly defined solution and plan (like proposed by Cox) I don't see any chance to work out of this mess, and I know through my businesses there is a serious black cloud on the horizon. Also, based upon my over 40 times reading Scripture cover-to-cover, I know the 7 Vial Judgments are looming, and I expect theologically no 'secret rapture' nor the Christian church missing out on this pending epic historical event.

The fulfillment of the gentiles and restoration of the Jews (read Sir Henry Finch...which I'm working to republish) will demonstrate there is a solution...and it is relatively consistent with Cox's arguments. Common law is an aspect that needs to be readdressed as we did back in the early 1990's before the hammer came down on lots of people through force. It is being set-up obviously to happen again...but without any solution being discussed...people will feel (I know) fearful as Cox outlines.

Anthony said (March 19, 2010):

Although I understand this young mans valour, courage and anger. He reminds me very much (which is scary in and of itself) of the stories my father told me about the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 which was a vain attempt to usurp and expel the criminal soviet leadership in the country at the time. There were many brave Magyar zealots and patriots that were slain, waiting for the liberty loving, Christian west (namely the USA) to come and complete the work they started against the rogue communists. We all know how history unfolded.

Non violence does not, at times, make sense to human logic, however, it is the only Divine option.

Ted said (March 19, 2010):

I think Mr Cox's reaction to the federal government is quite natural. When faced with a government that is FUBAR, we citizens naturally wonder what sort of alternative we can turn to when Washington goes postal.

Rather that waiting around for someone else to make a decision, Mr Cox has acted. I think we should realize that unless we want to continue to be sheep, we also need to become more proactive in determining our future. This is agonizing and difficult because we don't know what the future holds. Nevertheless, we can be reasonably assured that the solution is not going to come from Washington.

We are going to have to stand up and fight the feds sooner or later, so forming some sort of local structure to protect our liberty, rights and property is not such a bad idea. We know, and can more easily trust, people from our own area. We can also recognize outsiders, such as federal agents, who might want to thwart our efforts.
Unfortunately, the history of freedom has always been rather bloody. While I would much prefer a peaceful solution, but I seriously doubt the current power structure is going to step aside without a fight. If we are forced to fight, then we need to get organized.

Fear and intimidation are the only serious weapons Washington has. All the soldiers, police and federal agents in the country wouldn't stand a chance against an organized and well armed populace, and Washington knows this. That's why this battle will be primarily fought in the media. Washington has the advantage of controlling the mainstream media, which is a huge advantage for them. This would be the main hurdle to be overcome. If the citizens could take this advantage away, it would be all over.
I don't even like to think about this stuff, but we're being forced into a corner and we're going to have to face the music sooner or later. Maybe Mr Cox is on the right track.

Steve said (March 19, 2010):

about the alaskan alternative government article. everyone seems to forget this
we are the militia. it's the LAW and it's very plain.

Tony said (March 19, 2010):

Does this guy really think the U.S. criminal oligarchy running this country would sit by and watch a rival government blossom? Dream on. Why does he think Eisenhower stole the state militias and made them into the national guard? The state militias had a dual purpose by law. One was to put down any unlawful uprising in the state. The other was to keep the federal government in line with constitutional law. Once Eisenhower federalized the state militias, states' rights became just coffee house talk.

I can't believe the numbers of followers Cox is supposed to have. Are there really that many Americans who are desperate enough to think there would be any thing to gain in this line of thinking? Or non thinking? Or is the figure one of imagination?

I used to attend meetings of the common law court people. Lots of wishful thinking and lots of jail terms. When the existing courts tell you up front that they no longer use common law you'd better pay attention. It may or may not be lawful to dump common law but you'll never get it back by ignoring what the courts warn you about. Besides, common law is not the most godly law in the world. It could and did often cause a lot of unnecessary grief to a lot of innocent people because it is extremely rigid.

Silver? The Ron Paul nonsense. That is REALLY dreaming.

Militias? Let me tell you a little story. I have a friend who lives in the northwest U.S. - or used to. We're out of touch. He got a militia going in Montana years ago that had about 2,000 active members, I've been told. I do know that there was something going on during that time which had to do with crossing the U.S./Canadian border and the feds didn't like it.

Shortly the northwest was quietly inundated by a bunch of FBI/federal marshal types pretending to be fishermen, hunters, sight seers, etc. They were setting up to create some sort of strike; a minor war, because another source told me the feds had ambulance helicopters flown into the area from as far away as Portland, OR. in that time frame.

To make it short, my friend got wind of it, the militia was activated, the feds were terrorized when they realized they were going to have to deal with an army of 2,000 which knew the territory inside out and knew how to fight a war, 'Nam style. They left the area post haste.

Good show, huh? Well, not all that good. After things cooled down some feds got my friend off to themselves and gave him the old mafia choice: "Get out of Montana or get dead." He naturally got out and the militia fell apart. See how it works? It takes more than a guru to make a change. It takes an overall dedication and determination right down to the lowest soldier. Which means his guru idea sucks too.

BTW, northwest Montana/northern Idaho has a reputation of being a hot bed of "patriot" types. The last time I was there the real patriot types pointed out to me just how many of those floating around were actually fed agents of one kind or other. The Weaver family found out about that the hard way.

Whatever is eventually done, it won't be easy and it won't be bloodless. And this bandit government is not going to collapse on its own. Not as long as it can provide food to the military. Local cops are, for all intents and purposes, already subdivisions of the military. That's a damned big army in itself. And they kill citizens every day, no qualms, no punishment, no stigma. The worse they get is a temporary paid leave while the killing is being "investigated." The investigation always "proves" the cop acted correctly.

MARK said (March 19, 2010):

Schaeffer Cox has a logical, if simplistic, outlook. He may or may not know that the way it really works is that the government has been corrupted, and is not simply "corrupt" -- the former being a realization that private central bankers have corrupted the government and tyrannized that government, and then the government tyrannizes us.

This is not mere semantics. It's real: The bankers squeeze the government, and the government, in turn, squeezes us. In a sense we need to rescue those worthy aspects of government that we need from the clutches of our conquerers in central banking -- who are tactical warriors out to sack the nation-states with non-military means, even though they foster wars.

The problem with outifts like Cox's is that they are SO PRONE TO INFILTRATION and people like him could be agents themselves. That is only an observation. He may be perfectly honest and legitimate.

Yet it is clear that we all are going to have to "go Amish" to varying degrees and stop buying most imports, grow and catch more of our own food and detach from much of the system as often and as long as we can. Whether we need to go past "Amish" and "go militia" is hard to say, but more self-sufficiency brings a natural right for basic self-defense, even if there were no government corruption and tyranny to fear. Too much dependency on the central state is a bad idea even in the best of times.

The National Strike called for by Oregonian Karen Quinn-Tostado (, and, utilizing the Continental Congress Articles of Freedom drawn up last November, is a notable step. Check that out and see where it leads. Mr. Cox's outlook may appear logical, but there is much else to explore and consider.

Check this out for more details.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at