Jump to content
DasBlinkenlight

Militia lack of focus and mission

Recommended Posts

The U.S. Constitution calls for the militia to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"   The reality is, at the moment, there is low likelihood of needing to repel an invasion.   I also don't expect many state or local governments to call up unorganized militias to "execute the laws of the Union" due to public perception and municipal liability.   

 

That leaves "suppress insurrections", and oppose tyranny when it comes in the form of government.   Indeed, we have seen militias do just that.


Bundy ranch: Militia members stood up to federal overreach trying to seize the Bundys cattle.
Battle of Athens Tennessee: locals took up arms to stop the local government from predatory policing, police brutality, political corruption, and voter intimidation.

George Floyd riots: Small groups assisted local business owners in protecting their private property when the local police were overwhelmed

Gettysburg threats:   Hundreds showed up to protect the park against antifa attacks

Military recruiter attacks: After several army recruiter offices were attacked, militia groups stood guard outside, showing support.

 

In spite of this, it seems most militia groups I have seen, seem to be focused on survival/prepping or preparing to repel a foreign invasion.   I think this lack of focus and mission very much is to the detriment of the movement as a whole.   When a new member joins a group, wanting to contribute, and the group has a class on fishing fly tying, and jungle booby traps, they start to loose interest... And I don't think it is the intent of those group leaders, just the fact that their is lack of focus and mission.

 

When asked, most will say the mission of their unit is "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;..."   But that is still pretty vague.   
Take the U.S. Army:   Their mission is " To deploy, fight, and win our Nation's wars by providing ready, prompt, and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the Joint Force.", but each unit has it's own mission within the big picture.   For instance, the air defense artillery mission is: "to protect the force and selected geopolitical assets from aerial attack, missile attack, and surveillance."   That is pretty specific... it allows a unit to develop its Mission Essential Task List (METL) and come up with a training program that supports that specific mission.

 

So should the unit mission of a militia be "to close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver to destroy, capture, or repel an assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack."?   How will that fit in the framework of suppressing insurrection?   Defending a store or monument or cattle ranch?   I do think the fundamentals of infantry are essential for modern militias.    It takes a lot of training evolutions to get proficient at it.   Given that most groups meet once a month, for a full Saturday and a few hours on Sunday, leaves  about 18 days of training.    (12 full days and 12 half days).    Eighteen days to get proficient at manipulating weapons,  react to contact, communicate, casevac, TCCC, land nav,  assault, patrol, post contact actions, etc... Plus if you are defending property during civil unrest, you'll need some legal guidance on use of force, and options,  citizens arrest (if aplicable in your state) etc, so your group doesn't get jammed up after the fact.   That's a lot to get proficient in, in just 18 days.   

That is the focus I see missing.   No group is going to be proficient at basic infantry if they are also training in foraging, food preservation, etc, they will be jacks of all trades and masters of none.

And that brings us to the crux of the issue.   Leadership.    Not necessarily that leaders are bad, but many don't have good direction (or focus)... because supporting and defending the constitution against all enemies is noble, it is just too general of a mission, and the local leaders don't have the guidance to focus on more unit oriented missions and training.    Additionally, because a lot of the volunteers mainly want to "play army in the woods" there is a lack of support leadership...Intel, comms, public relations, and logistics.   That requires a time commitment beyond the monthly FTX, and recruiting for it is a long pole in the tent, because it is not as "fun" or "glamorous" as playing army in the woods.

Ideas for solutions?
Do we start a militia "officers corps" (even though most are not commissioned)?

Maybe a dual organizational structure like the Sinn Féin and the IRA?

Is political and social activism going to be part of the militia, or just something on members do on their own?

 

What are your ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DasBlinkenlight said:

The U.S. Constitution calls for the militia to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"   The reality is, at the moment, there is low likelihood of needing to repel an invasion.   I also don't expect many state or local governments to call up unorganized militias to "execute the laws of the Union" due to public perception and municipal liability.   

 

That leaves "suppress insurrections", and oppose tyranny when it comes in the form of government.   Indeed, we have seen militias do just that.


Bundy ranch: Militia members stood up to federal overreach trying to seize the Bundys cattle.
Battle of Athens Tennessee: locals took up arms to stop the local government from predatory policing, police brutality, political corruption, and voter intimidation.

George Floyd riots: Small groups assisted local business owners in protecting their private property when the local police were overwhelmed

Gettysburg threats:   Hundreds showed up to protect the park against antifa attacks

Military recruiter attacks: After several army recruiter offices were attacked, militia groups stood guard outside, showing support.

 

In spite of this, it seems most militia groups I have seen, seem to be focused on survival/prepping or preparing to repel a foreign invasion.   I think this lack of focus and mission very much is to the detriment of the movement as a whole.   When a new member joins a group, wanting to contribute, and the group has a class on fishing fly tying, and jungle booby traps, they start to loose interest... And I don't think it is the intent of those group leaders, just the fact that their is lack of focus and mission.

 

When asked, most will say the mission of their unit is "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;..."   But that is still pretty vague.   
Take the U.S. Army:   Their mission is " To deploy, fight, and win our Nation's wars by providing ready, prompt, and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the Joint Force.", but each unit has it's own mission within the big picture.   For instance, the air defense artillery mission is: "to protect the force and selected geopolitical assets from aerial attack, missile attack, and surveillance."   That is pretty specific... it allows a unit to develop its Mission Essential Task List (METL) and come up with a training program that supports that specific mission.

 

So should the unit mission of a militia be "to close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver to destroy, capture, or repel an assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack."?   How will that fit in the framework of suppressing insurrection?   Defending a store or monument or cattle ranch?   I do think the fundamentals of infantry are essential for modern militias.    It takes a lot of training evolutions to get proficient at it.   Given that most groups meet once a month, for a full Saturday and a few hours on Sunday, leaves  about 18 days of training.    (12 full days and 12 half days).    Eighteen days to get proficient at manipulating weapons,  react to contact, communicate, casevac, TCCC, land nav,  assault, patrol, post contact actions, etc... Plus if you are defending property during civil unrest, you'll need some legal guidance on use of force, and options,  citizens arrest (if aplicable in your state) etc, so your group doesn't get jammed up after the fact.   That's a lot to get proficient in, in just 18 days.   

That is the focus I see missing.   No group is going to be proficient at basic infantry if they are also training in foraging, food preservation, etc, they will be jacks of all trades and masters of none.

And that brings us to the crux of the issue.   Leadership.    Not necessarily that leaders are bad, but many don't have good direction (or focus)... because supporting and defending the constitution against all enemies is noble, it is just too general of a mission, and the local leaders don't have the guidance to focus on more unit oriented missions and training.    Additionally, because a lot of the volunteers mainly want to "play army in the woods" there is a lack of support leadership...Intel, comms, public relations, and logistics.   That requires a time commitment beyond the monthly FTX, and recruiting for it is a long pole in the tent, because it is not as "fun" or "glamorous" as playing army in the woods.

Ideas for solutions?
Do we start a militia "officers corps" (even though most are not commissioned)?

Maybe a dual organizational structure like the Sinn Féin and the IRA?

Is political and social activism going to be part of the militia, or just something on members do on their own?

 

What are your ideas?

Militia 'officer corps' is a good actionable idea. Basic infantry is important. There are many resources out there for intel..Open Source. Instead of mocking militia members for being keyboard warriors, a much better approach is to use them for the intel and comms. They could be a special intel unit that helps various militias within a state even nationally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Original Post hits the nail on the head. The militia is NOT  "the last line": if an invasion force defeats the real military, it won't even notice the militia movement ... it will have more trouble subduing South Chicago.  But there will not be an "invasion force" in the first place.  

 

As for the "survival training", this is just having fun. It's nothing to do with what the militia movement might face in the future, which is combat against "the enemy within", which will mainly be on urban terrain.

 

The Officer Corps idea is a very good one. The reality of the militia movement is that there is not much difference between senior NCO's, and officers.  What we really need is a series of 'Militia Summer Schools', spread across the country -- one or two weeks long, held on someone's farm -- we can sleep in tents! -- at a low cost, because the teachers would volunteer their services.  

 

One other advantage that such schools might have: out of them might come the national leadership we desperately need. Could the Oathkeepers and Three Percenters be brought into this idea?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something like this at the Militia level would be great. 

 

That being said... how much time do we really have to try to organize something like this?  It's possible things will go fully hot by November depending upon the election results... or perhaps it won't make a difference who wins.  Tyrants and their mobs will keep on their path to marxism no matter what.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Author of the topic Posted

Expanding on the idea of a leadership course... class ideas:

Recruiting and retention

Structure, focus and mission

Legal considerations

how to train, and developing a training plan

Intelligence, collection and analysis

mission planning

Strategy planning

Psyops/public relations (maybe part of recruiting and retention)

Politics/activism/lawfare/

 

Too much?

Anything left out?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, DasBlinkenlight said:

Expanding on the idea of a leadership course... class ideas:

Recruiting and retention

Structure, focus and mission

Legal considerations

how to train, and developing a training plan

Intelligence, collection and analysis

mission planning

Strategy planning

Psyops/public relations (maybe part of recruiting and retention)

Politics/activism/lawfare/

 

Too much?

Anything left out?

 

 

You are opening up a can of worms. LOL

 

History.

1600s-1776 Colonial period, militia was in its proper place and regulated by colonies; the colonies commissioned officers, or officers were elected, or officer commissions were purchased; not consistent.

1776-1903 Post colonial period and statehoods. Militia was in its proper constitutional position as state agencies. States decided officer qualifications and were the commissioning authority.

1903: Dick Act The militia was destroyed constitutionally by Congress dividing it into the Guard and unorganized (or reserve militia), getting rid of the compulsory requirement and allowing the Guard to be sent overseas (not constitutional) to fight in WWI.

1903-1916 The militia writ large is not on constitutional grounds base on what the Founders gave us, by discerning original intent. Furthermore, there is no path to return the militia to original constitutional form because both citizenry and legislative bodies are ignorant as to what happened in 1903. We failed as citizens to self govern, so we got governed.

1916- National Defense Act brings the militia in what was exclusively state controlled agency, into federal control. 10 USC sect 246 comes into play and it is unconstitutional.

1916-present the militia disappears from constitutional grounds largely dependent on the federal government to fund and administer. Guard units essentially become a reserve US Army organization.

 

So where does that leave us? 

 

You build from the ground up at the county level. Capture the sheriff. Educate and capture county officers and send representatives to the state house. If you have enough counties.....you create "soft power" and advocate for a bill to return the state militia to its constitutional form, by statute, and compulsory service from age 16-whatever. A state can do what it wants: and you would only need ONE state to do it. That would cause the rest to unravel because of their unconstitutional foundation. Once SCOTUS rules......the National Guard ceases to be a kick-stand for the US Army, and the unorganized militia has to provide service to the militia. Compulsory. That is a constitutional militia.

 

I hypothesize that right now, 9 Jul 2020, the only state that could pull this off is South Dakota. Super majority in the senate and a governor who is the only one recognizing she has no constitutional authority to restrict liberty in her state due to COVID-19. As such, she would recognize it.  A massive information operation would be required. MASSIVE. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by MiguelCepeda
grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

You build from the ground up at the county level. Capture the sheriff. Educate and capture county officers and send representatives to the state house. If you have enough counties.....you create "soft power" and advocate for a bill to return the state militia to its constitutional form, by statute, and compulsory service from age 16-whatever. A state can do what it wants: and you would only need ONE state to do it. That would cause the rest to unravel because of their unconstitutional foundation. Once SCOTUS rules......the National Guard ceases to be a kick-stand for the US Army, and the unorganized militia has to provide service to the militia. Compulsory. That is a constitutional militia.

 

I hypothesize that right now, 9 Jul 2020, the only state that could pull this off is South Dakota. Super majority in the senate and a governor who is the only one recognizing she has no constitutional authority to restrict liberty in her state due to COVID-19. As such, she would recognize it.  A massive information operation would be required. MASSIVE.

 

 

 

Let us call the above, Plan A. It hypothesizes that we can transform the US 'from below', via electing the right county sheriffs, the right legislators, the right governors ... and that if we can do this in just one state, the Supreme Court will force all the other states to do it ...   So we would have official militias in every state, controlled by that state's government.  As a corollary to this, 'private' militias, as we have now, would probably be outlawed.

 

I see problems with this, and the main one is: we don't command a majority of voters in most states any more.  By 'we' I mean patriots, not just conservatives.  And even if we did, I don't see many people voting for compulsory military service, even in a state militia that cannot be sent overseas. What is being proposed, although abstractly a wonderful idea, is so radical that it's unlikely to succeed.

 

However, the 'massive' information drive needed for this, the attempt to 'capture' local office,  is exactly what we need. That is, the militia movement must stop thinking it can hide in a corner while its state goes deeper Blue every two years.

 

But if the above does not work, we need a Plan B.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to quickly interrupt the deeper philosophical discussion to throw out a bit of information that might get some additional gears turning for you guys.

 

I'm intimately familiar with some quirks of South Dakota law. In fact, I'm a legal South Dakota resident...though I've never stepped foot in the state.

 

If you've never heard of it, look into something called "The Free State Project". It was an effort to get ten thousand people to move to New Hampshire and essentially establish a "free" society that took control of the legislature, etc., with the goal of building a sort of Libertarian utopia. On it's face it seemed a pretty swell idea, and it got some serious traction. People actually moved. I haven't followed up on it for years, but the last I did it seemed to be floundering.

 

Knowing what I know now about South Dakota, I think they chose the wrong state. What's more, having the same effect on South Dakota may not necessarily require physically moving there. If an effort such as you propose were to require actual residency, or at least the appearance of such, it's entirely possible it could be pulled off from your livingroom sofa.

 

I talk to all of you outside of this discussion group. Let me know if you'd like to hear more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ROFCB Commander said:

I'm going to quickly interrupt the deeper philosophical discussion to throw out a bit of information that might get some additional gears turning for you guys.

 

I'm intimately familiar with some quirks of South Dakota law. In fact, I'm a legal South Dakota resident...though I've never stepped foot in the state.

 

If you've never heard of it, look into something called "The Free State Project". It was an effort to get ten thousand people to move to New Hampshire and essentially establish a "free" society that took control of the legislature, etc., with the goal of building a sort of Libertarian utopia. On it's face it seemed a pretty swell idea, and it got some serious traction. People actually moved. I haven't followed up on it for years, but the last I did it seemed to be floundering.

 

Knowing what I know now about South Dakota, I think they chose the wrong state. What's more, having the same effect on South Dakota may not necessarily require physically moving there. If an effort such as you propose were to require actual residency, or at least the appearance of such, it's entirely possible it could be pulled off from your livingroom sofa.

 

I talk to all of you outside of this discussion group. Let me know if you'd like to hear more.

I'd like to hear more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great question! Dr Vieira addresses that: You make broad exemptions to the compulsory service when you start out, and you make adjustments to "able-bodied" requirement so that people can provide service to the militia without being riflemen.

 

The public debt is a huge selling point because it would effectively get rid of Homeland Security and everything that attaches itself to it. Being a realist, it would have to be done in phases, because the militia's destruction was done in phases.

 

And to your point, we may be so far gone that it cannot be repaired. So where do you go from there?

 

If we lose in November, it is a moot point. That will be the fatal blow to the Republic. The Dems will stack SCOTUS, grant 20 million illegals citizenship; thereby guaranteeing one party rule-- and get your guns by a variety of tactics, not just one like so many here imagine. There isn't going to be a Lexington Green scenario when DHS marching across a bridge. No. You will not be able to work because you are an enemy of the state, because the concept of "outlaw" will be brought back into American jurisprudence.

 

So can we all agree we have to win in November? That is another reason why Info Operations and Psyops are so very, very critical right now-- and there are scoffers among our own numbers-- but they scoff at tried and true military doctrine. I don't know where we go from there. That is like a Doctor giving yo8u a prescription that absolutely works, and you refuse to take the medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The long and short of it is this; most states have purposeful "quirks" in their legal system that let them take advantage of flaws in other states' systems. That's why you see so many corporations formed in Delaware, or (if you watch for it) so many big-rig trailers that are registered in Maine. These are low-risk revenue drivers for the states, and it doesn't cause too many hassles between legislatures.

 

South Dakota's quirky law is aimed at full-time travelers; people who live in RVs for life. Registering an RV that is used that way is a pain in most states, compounded by inspections, etc. On top of that, as a full-time traveler it's obviously hard to collect mail, or any other "home base" things you might find yourself needing to do.

 

South Dakota allows a full-time traveler to establish residency via two simple steps; signing an affidavit (notarized) that says you have no permanent abode anywhere else, and obtaining a legal address in the state of South Dakota. That's it. There are agencies throughout the state that exist for no other purpose than this. They're mail drops, but they'll handle other state needs, like registering your motorhome (or car, or whatever). And of course they provide you with an address. Affidavit, SD address, and you're now a legal resident of the state of South Dakota.

 

There's more. You can get your South Dakota driver's license by staying ONE DAY in the state. A hotel or campground receipt is taken to the driver's license center, together with your current state DL, and you're issued a SD DL. Now you're a South Dakota resident with proof of residency.

 

There are some pesky hurdles--that affidavit, for one thing. But it's do-able. In my case, I actually WAS a full-time traveler at the time I did it so I was completely above-board. I'm not saying it should be done any other way...

 

...but if you needed an army of South Dakota "residents" to find ways to motivate politicians, that might be one way to do it. Mail from (by all appearances) actual constituents would be much more effective than just a note from some guy in Jersey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn. I didn't know that. That should be Plan A.

 

So the intelligence product would be essentially be a strategic political Intelligence Preparation of the Battlespace (IPB), layered from the county to the state house, to the governor's office; from there you do an Intelligence Estimate, and then launch the op.

 

I need a GIS operator with the software license, a pair of OSINT researchers, one intel analyst (if he has the GIS software you kill two birds with one stone), a GOP campaign manager from SD, and a social media warrior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2020 at 6:04 PM, WinterPatriot said:

The Original Post hits the nail on the head. The militia is NOT  "the last line": if an invasion force defeats the real military, it won't even notice the militia movement ... it will have more trouble subduing South Chicago.  But there will not be an "invasion force" in the first place.  

 

As for the "survival training", this is just having fun. It's nothing to do with what the militia movement might face in the future, which is combat against "the enemy within", which will mainly be on urban terrain.

 

The Officer Corps idea is a very good one. The reality of the militia movement is that there is not much difference between senior NCO's, and officers.  What we really need is a series of 'Militia Summer Schools', spread across the country -- one or two weeks long, held on someone's farm -- we can sleep in tents! -- at a low cost, because the teachers would volunteer their services.  

 

One other advantage that such schools might have: out of them might come the national leadership we desperately need. Could the Oathkeepers and Three Percenters be brought into this idea?

 

I like the idea of a summer school, albeit a bit late now. I would absolutely take a group out into the woods and work on and train with combat medicine/procedures and natural medicine. 
 

Some may sneer at “survival training” but I guarantee higher casualty rate  due to dehydration/exposure than a sucking chest wound from a 7.62 round.

 

If anyone in the northeast has interest in this, message me directly. And of course I’d volunteer my time, just don’t waste it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the most important thing:  no one knows what's going to happen, if Biden wins in November.

 

It will obviously be a worse situation for patriots, than if he lost.  But the exact dimensions of that 'worseness', what will happen ... we don't know.

 

Yes, the victorious left will try to leverage their win: stack the Supremes, grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, move on the militia movement via state laws against private armies or even the Federal Smith Act ... all this and more is possible.  And our corporate masters will be emboldened to step up their purge of patriot voices on social media.  Universities will sink even further into becoming ThoughtControl Centers.

 

So, not fun. These will indeed be the times to try men's souls.

 

Okay ... what to do then? 

 

First of all, as the doctors' oath says,  "Do No Harm".  The Russian trolls will be screaming for us to start shooting.  They've already had a bit of success with the ridiculous 'boogaloo bois'.  And no doubt we will be subject to provocation after provocation ... legal persecution, blatantly unfair coverage in the lying MSM.  We will have to keep our cool. 

 

Second of all ... this will be an opportunity to grow in quality -- ie for everyone to add a new skill to their inventory, or to perfect the skills that they have. 

If you are reasonably handy with computers -- ie. can write an elementary program, or edit an HTML page -- deepen your knowledge. Start learning how to write  a webscraper, or how to do email spoofing. 

What's your level of first aid knowledge?  Can it be made better?  

What do you know about the legal world?  If you've got some expertise in the law, turn to the sort of legal issues we are liable to face -- the law governing self-defense for example.

Have you got your advanced ham radio license? 

Obviously, these are matters of personal inclination and opportunity, but almost everyone has the ability to add a new, relevant skill to their personal arsenal.

 

Thirdly .. if you are in a patriotic group, and have a relevant skill ... are you training your replacement?  See if there are others you can pass on your skills to.

 

These are 'hidden' activities, which can be done even if we have to keep our heads low for a while.

 

But I believe that there will, in the event of a Democratic victory, plenty of opportunities for open activities, which will allow us to grow in several ways.

 

Because, consider these points:

 

(1)  The Left's strongest recruiting point, the character of Mr Trump, will now be off the agenda. The Republicans will have to find a new leader but whoever it is, it won't be Trump or anyone like him. The Left has gotten off easy, over the last four years.  (I know that admirers of Mr Trump won't agree with this -- but the reality is, there is a broad section of American society, neither hardcore Left nor hardcore Right, who are repulsed by the man. We can win a lot of these people back. And their vote is equal to yours, so we need to.  We don't want hostile Democrats running the prosecuting attorney offices around the country.)

 

(2)  They will now have to govern.  This means the burden of responsibility for the results of governing will fall upon them.

How will they deal with the Border?  With the export of American jobs?  With crime?  With AntiFa/BLM riots?

It's a terrible fallacy to think that every Democrat voter is a raving AntiFa supporter, eager to see piles of dead policemen, burning flags,  or millions of impoverished people pouring over the border.  

 

If Biden wins, it will be because he convinced millions of voters that the riots were Trump's fault.  But a Biden victory may well embolden the rioters, who will now feel that another barrier -- federal intervention -- has been removed from their path to whatever insane utopia they think they're fighting for.   Just as they have continued rioting when an intelligent central leadership would have called a temporary halt, until after the election ... they may come out into the streets with new determination.  This can only help us.

 

(3)  They will have responsibility for foreign policy.   From my point of view, Mr Trump was a disappointment, in terms of getting our people out of overseas snakepits. But he made a start. What will the Democrats in power do?  They have been recently reinforced by the neocons, who will push hard for an aggressive 'forward posture' -- on the other hand, a growing wing of the Democrats, in the base, have begun to realize that we really cannot solve all the problems of dysfunctional societies -- we can't even change South Chicago, so how in the hell are we supposed to civilize Absurdistan or Blongo-Bongo Land?    

And ... our enemies will test the new Democratic leadership, just as Kruschev  (unwisely) decided to test John F Kennedy (whom Kruschev decided was 'soft'), by putting missiles in Cuba. 

 

The point is this: whatever happens after the President is sworn in, in January 2021,  whoever he is ... America is not going to settle down and return to the relative tranquility and stability of the post-war years when it was the supreme military and economic power in the world.  There will be instability, turbulence, upheavals.

 

We can take advantage of this situation.  We need to project ourselves --  the 'expanded militia movement' as I would call it -- as centers of decent, commonsense Americanism;  solid, reliable centers of community defense, able to repel rioters, deter looters, deal with the aftermath of a hurricane or an Islamist mass atrocity if the official structures of government are not up to it.  We need to be seen as the place to go for help,  the people who, if necessary, can guard your neighborhood from looters, your church/synagogue/mosque from terrorists; who can render immediate medical help to victims of a bomb or earthquake; who can clear roads, turn off powerlines, re-connect water supplies, supply temporary shelter.

 

Now that's a very ambitious program.  But we can grow into it.  We need to expand our numbers by a factor of ten,  and then do it again.  To achieve that final goal, would only require one out of every sixty Trump voters enlisting in their local militia.

 

And militias need to become more ambitious in their self-conception: they should see themselves not JUST as narrowly military formations, but as vital 'community rallying points'. 

A good example of a local group that has already done this is the Houston Unit of the Texas State Militia [ here:   https://tsmhouston.org  ] 

A good example of a national group that is showing the way for everyone is is the Civilian Defense Force [ here: https://hq.civiliandefenseforce.org ] 

 

So ... if Biden wins in November, the fight is not over. It will have just begun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...