Jump to content
ROFCB Commander

Leadership 101: LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY

Recommended Posts

Today is Day Four of the twenty-day "Leadership 101" series I'll be posting. This series expresses my thoughts on some topics important to the successful leadership of a local unit, and asks other unit leaders to post their thoughts, ideas, and experiences on the same subject in hopes that together we can help those who are starting from scratch with unit-building.

 

Today's topic is LEAD, FOLLOW, or GET OUT OF THE WAY.

 

Early in the American Civil War a Union General was promoted far in excess of his actual proven abilities. This is not uncommon, and in fact it's sometimes necessary due to circumstances or the sheer lack of capable bodies to fill necessary positions. In this case the officer was an Engineer by trade and experience, not a battlefield commander. Perhaps knowing this, and what became of him, it would seem no surprise. Retrospect gives us the ability to look back and say "how didn't they see that coming?" But at the time, nobody could foresee how things would turn out.

 

The officer turned out to be very, very good at organizing and building the morale of his troops. He took what was a defeated, dejected army and reformed, retrained, and refocused them until they became an absolutely mighty fighting force--and he did it not once, but twice. This, it seems, was a talent he possessed in spades.

 

Sadly, the talent he did not possess was the ability to put this force to battle. He was ever making plans, constantly maneuvering, adjusting and re-adjusting. It could legitimately be said that he never fully unleashed the power of the force he commanded. Even in the battle that goes down as a victory for him (it was tactically a draw, but because he forced the enemy to retreat from the field first it is considered a win for the North) he was paralyzed by indecision and analysis paralysis. Moreover, had he prosecuted the enemy with even a little more zeal, it's entirely possible he could have ended the war much sooner than it actually concluded. In fact history points to several opportunities just like that, where had he acted instead of waiting, the war could have been brought to a much swifter conclusion.

 

Most who know history are aware by now that I am talking about George McClellan, elevated to and then ultimately relieved of his command by President Lincoln for his refusal to actually wage war with his army. He was eventually replaced by Ulysses Grant, who was in many ways his diametric opposite. Grant was prone to fight even when it wasn't particularly well advised, often suffering significant casualties to the point where he was at one point given the nickname "The Butcher". Unlike McClellan, Grant was decisive. He rarely second-guessed his decisions, and though he was not as tactically gifted as McClellan (who, by most measures, planned his battles carefully and well--he just didn't execute them), he was fearless in his resolve to prosecute the battle at all costs.

 

This paragraph simplifies the matter for both men, who had their strengths and weaknesses and together could be assessed with greater or lesser accuracy than I am presenting them here, but the experience of each illustrates a point, and their combined experience further illustrates it exceptionally well.

 

Before we go much further, I should note something--I am much more similar in style and temperament to General McClellan than I am to General Grant. I am extremely capable as an organizer, morale-builder, and strategist; but I too sometimes suffer from analysis paralysis, and can imagine myself struggling to prosecute the battle while I'm in the midst of it. This is an honest assessment of my strengths, and acknowledgement of what could be a significant weakness.

 

I urge any current unit commanders to measure themselves with the same degree of honesty and candor. You'll need that assessment when this article is complete, and again throughout the next four months as you prepare for the battles to come.

 

I submit that had the roles been reversed--had Grant risen to command before the war was fully engaged, and McClellan brought in as it was underway, the Union could easily have lost. The addition of McClellan, following severe losses to an already demoralized army, would have delayed the inevitable because, as history has shown, he had a remarkable ability to restore order and morale, while instituting policies that accelerated unit-building and training. He could have stopped the bleeding long enough to push the war forward a bit...but the damage that would have been done had Grant assumed command and attempted to prosecute the war effort with a disorganized, ill-trained army of insufficient size (as it would have been when he received command of it) would likely have been too catastrophic to recover from. The two men served in the capacities they should have, at the time they were needed to do so.

 

I use these two for this post because I believe they illustrate a truth that plagues the Militia today. Our unit leaders are, in my estimation, too like Grant when they should be striving to be more like McClellan. Many are spoiling for the fight, but with an army that is too small, too poorly supported, and essentially unprepared for the battle. They are counting on reinforcements when the battle moves too close to home, but this is too great a gamble...especially when they could just as easily adopt the ways of McClellan at this moment in time and build a large, strong, well-supported, well-trained fighting force that, when unleashed, will be more than adequate to defeat the enemy.

 

I don't want to denigrate the Grant that lives inside of them--we need Ulysses Grant in the very near future, and we need those commanders to step up and transform themselves once more into their inner "Butcher" when the time is right for it. But for now, for this moment, we need the cautious leader, the team-builder, the commander who is loved so much by his men that they recruit others to his side. We need the tactician who battle-plans well before he commits his troops to the field, who is so protective of his troops that he won't commit them to battle until he's certain of victory--and works tirelessly to ensure they have full support services behind them. We need leaders who recognize when it's time to lead the battle, when it's time to lead the recruitment effort, when it's time to lead the team building. In short, we need leaders who recognize the difference between build time, and kick ass time. We need them to channel their inner McClellan, at least for the short window we have to be the engineer rather than the brigadier.

 

Right now, it's the time to build. In truth, it's been time to build for a long time and we've failed a bit in that regard, There isn't nearly as much time to do that now as there once was, but the recruits are coming to us much more than they were before the current troubles reared. Now is the time to put those recruits to good use building the organization--not just preparing to fight. Think of it as handing them fishing poles rather than fish; we're looking to create a sustained fishing program, not just a really good meal for the day. The time will come, as more and more are recruited, when we can choose the best of the fighters and put them on the field to learn how to engage the enemy.

 

But let's get those bodies through the door first. We can't choose the elite if we can't pull in the crowds to begin with. Leading, right now, may mean getting out of your own way. Follow the way of the businessman, the engineer, rather than the soldier. Then, when the time is right for it, redirect your efforts to be more Grant-like. Because a leader knows when to lead, when to follow, and when to get out of (his own) way.

 

Tomorrow, we'll talk about WINNING--OR AT LEAST FIGHTING--THE PROPAGANDA WAR.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to hear the command structure and different ranks that could be available. I have never served so not sure of the ranking system. My views are the first six months you don't have any rank but are labeled a prospect. This would also limit and fallout if a prospect acted in a way which damages to good name of a militia in the community where you could come out and publicly state that he was not a member but had applied to become one and their application was still under review. After that the first three lowest ranks would be available based upon previous military service as long as those ranks are not already occupied. Everyone starts at the lowest rank unless you were an officer in the military where you could skip to the 2nd or 3rd lowest rank if not already occupied. Promotion to any rank would be subject to you passing the initial 6 month probation period with certain criteria that has to be met. Promotion after that would be based upon a fix period of activity within the militia which would require 75% attendance of required activities. So if the group meets the 1st and 3rd Saturday of each month excluding two months per year which would equal 20 meetings they would be required to attend 15 of those to be considered for promotion. Each required fix period of time of activity for promotion within the militia would increase as the rank level increases and if two people are up for the same promotion then a vote from all militia members would determine who should advance with prospects not being allowed to vote. Above a certain rank the general membership would be more involved in approving promotion. This would ensure leaders are respected and are good managers helping those under him/her not just order givers. Good moral standing and completion of required training which could be rank specific would need to be completed even to the extent of external professional training. I would be interested in hearing other people's views on building a good command structure that is respected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rank Structure for a militia is a burden. You older folks need to understand what modern warfare looks like. In a simulated fashion, I have separated a whole unit into 3-4 and can prove and show the efficiency and viability...

 

Civilians

Veterans

Leadership

Liaison

 

All groups police themselves and when another group finds any red flags amongst another one, they correct. Every group respects their elders and the people found with the most age and/or experience run them.

This structure is faster than traditional ranks structure, it is self-healing, the best foment to the top naturally, and there is no taking the time having to hold hands generally... even cross-training is easier and there is a lot more of that in modern times.

Share this post


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

A couple of points I did not make about McClellan and Grant, which add interestingly to both the story and the lesson...

 

McClellan, the well organized but indecisive, timid fighter, was also full of hubris. At one point in his leadership he actually declared to his wife that he was sure he could name himself dictator if he so desired; at another, after being dismissed and roundly condemned, he stuck to his belief that he was extremely gifted and that history would judge him far more accurately (as in, would recognize his brilliance) than his contemporaries. While history has softened towards him a bit in the past several decades, the reality remains that he's typically looked down upon among students of history and military tacticians in particular.

 

Grant, on the other hand, was much more reserved and less prone to ego. In fact he had a tendency to reflect privately, and express his sorrow openly but alone. He was famously prone to drinking (he originally resigned from the Army because he'd assured his commander that he would either reform his drinking or quit; when he failed to stop drinking, he kept his word and resigned). He was often maligned for his weaknesses, both contemporaneously and in the years since, though like McClellan the stance against him has softened. As President, Grant--who dealt with scandal throughout his eight years, and continued to fight battles with the bottle--was noted for his forward-thinking plans that tended to fizzle. Again, history shows us that his ideas were well ahead of their time and exceptionally fair-minded and grand in scope; sadly, they often were only moderately successful at best, incomplete and far too assailable at worst. Much of what Grant was able to accomplish was later undone by future Presidents (which, for instance, allowed Jim Crow laws to be enacted and flourish for eighty years after he left office). As a man, Grant was not much interested in fame or glory. His memoirs, completed just days before he died, were not something he particularly wished to write; he did so because he was nearly broke and dying, and needed to ensure that his wife would be taken care of after he passed. It was at the insistence of his friend Mark Twain, who offered to pay the unheard-of royalty rate of 75% (typical royalties at the time hovered around 10%), that he finally settled in and wrote them. His memoirs were a critical and commercial success, and left his widow with a tidy sum upon which to live out her days.

 

My feeling is that these stories illustrate the dangers of ego and self-adulation; and the benefit of keeping one's hubris in check. There are times when it is appropriate to ride taller in the saddle, and times when it's best to be a little less John Wayne. Knowing the difference and exploiting them can spell disaster or success for the unit you lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also thinking about a duel system where each person would have a job title/responsibility like you would have in a business or charity and this is what would be used 75% of the time. Then also the same people would hold a military style rank for tactical training and operations purposes. They do not have to relate to each other in regards to power. A private in the militia may have more responsibility and power on the civilian operations side than a captain such as operating a food bank or other community or educational projects. The military ranking system would be used in military style operations. There would be areas of possible crossover where a position like a logistics officer who maybe a private sometimes would be subject to a captain and other times would be over him depending on what is being handled. I am thinking along the lines of more a civilian operating system which has a secondary militant function. We have to be careful not to reinforce the idea that the only purpose of the militia is to train to stand up in a physical fight to those who object to the constitution. I believe this is one of the reasons so many people are turned off to the idea of joining a militia. We are to educate and be politically active but also never forget that the militia is made up of the people for the people. We are to enrich and help our local communities seeing where needs are not being met. To win this fight we have to get the support of our local communities now by being an active part of them. Many make the mistake of thinking that when things get really bad that another 1000 armed fully trained patriots will just show up to support your 10 man militia. It takes a lot more that just bullets, beans and bandaids to effectively fight a war. We need the material support, trust and approval of our local communities and we should never assume or take for granted that we already have it or that it will be freely given when the time comes. It is important for a militia to support their local community if they want the community to support them. This may include defending the constitutional rights of those we may not agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, minicoopertn said:

I was also thinking about a duel system where each person would have a job title/responsibility like you would have in a business or charity and this is what would be used 75% of the time. Then also the same people would hold a military style rank for tactical training and operations purposes. They do not have to relate to each other in regards to power. A private in the militia may have more responsibility and power on the civilian operations side than a captain such as operating a food bank or other community or educational projects. The military ranking system would be used in military style operations. There would be areas of possible crossover where a position like a logistics officer who maybe a private sometimes would be subject to a captain and other times would be over him depending on what is being handled. I am thinking along the lines of more a civilian operating system which has a secondary militant function. We have to be careful not to reinforce the idea that the only purpose of the militia is to train to stand up in a physical fight to those who object to the constitution. I believe this is one of the reasons so many people are turned off to the idea of joining a militia. We are to educate and be politically active but also never forget that the militia is made up of the people for the people. We are to enrich and help our local communities seeing where needs are not being met. To win this fight we have to get the support of our local communities now by being an active part of them. Many make the mistake of thinking that when things get really bad that another 1000 armed fully trained patriots will just show up to support your 10 man militia. It takes a lot more that just bullets, beans and bandaids to effectively fight a war. We need the material support, trust and approval of our local communities and we should never assume or take for granted that we already have it or that it will be freely given when the time comes. It is important for a militia to support their local community if they want the community to support them. This may include defending the constitutional rights of those we may not agree with.

Key points you make Support their local community and trust. We can not think of ourselves as the "Traditional Militia" rank and file Commander and followers. Leaders in what I expect might happen in the future will be people that rise up from experience and others are willing to trust.  That is how it was back in the 1700's. We cant just follow someone who spouts I know this and I know that. Trust...... above all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, ROFCB Commander said:

Today is Day Four of the twenty-day "Leadership 101" series I'll be posting. This series expresses my thoughts on some topics important to the successful leadership of a local unit, and asks other unit leaders to post their thoughts, ideas, and experiences on the same subject in hopes that together we can help those who are starting from scratch with unit-building.

 

Today's topic is LEAD, FOLLOW, or GET OUT OF THE WAY.

 

Early in the American Civil War a Union General was promoted far in excess of his actual proven abilities. This is not uncommon, and in fact it's sometimes necessary due to circumstances or the sheer lack of capable bodies to fill necessary positions. In this case the officer was an Engineer by trade and experience, not a battlefield commander. Perhaps knowing this, and what became of him, it would seem no surprise. Retrospect gives us the ability to look back and say "how didn't they see that coming?" But at the time, nobody could foresee how things would turn out.

 

The officer turned out to be very, very good at organizing and building the morale of his troops. He took what was a defeated, dejected army and reformed, retrained, and refocused them until they became an absolutely mighty fighting force--and he did it not once, but twice. This, it seems, was a talent he possessed in spades.

 

Sadly, the talent he did not possess was the ability to put this force to battle. He was ever making plans, constantly maneuvering, adjusting and re-adjusting. It could legitimately be said that he never fully unleashed the power of the force he commanded. Even in the battle that goes down as a victory for him (it was tactically a draw, but because he forced the enemy to retreat from the field first it is considered a win for the North) he was paralyzed by indecision and analysis paralysis. Moreover, had he prosecuted the enemy with even a little more zeal, it's entirely possible he could have ended the war much sooner than it actually concluded. In fact history points to several opportunities just like that, where had he acted instead of waiting, the war could have been brought to a much swifter conclusion.

 

Most who know history are aware by now that I am talking about George McClellan, elevated to and then ultimately relieved of his command by President Lincoln for his refusal to actually wage war with his army. He was eventually replaced by Ulysses Grant, who was in many ways his diametric opposite. Grant was prone to fight even when it wasn't particularly well advised, often suffering significant casualties to the point where he was at one point given the nickname "The Butcher". Unlike McClellan, Grant was decisive. He rarely second-guessed his decisions, and though he was not as tactically gifted as McClellan (who, by most measures, planned his battles carefully and well--he just didn't execute them), he was fearless in his resolve to prosecute the battle at all costs.

 

This paragraph simplifies the matter for both men, who had their strengths and weaknesses and together could be assessed with greater or lesser accuracy than I am presenting them here, but the experience of each illustrates a point, and their combined experience further illustrates it exceptionally well.

 

Before we go much further, I should note something--I am much more similar in style and temperament to General McClellan than I am to General Grant. I am extremely capable as an organizer, morale-builder, and strategist; but I too sometimes suffer from analysis paralysis, and can imagine myself struggling to prosecute the battle while I'm in the midst of it. This is an honest assessment of my strengths, and acknowledgement of what could be a significant weakness.

 

I urge any current unit commanders to measure themselves with the same degree of honesty and candor. You'll need that assessment when this article is complete, and again throughout the next four months as you prepare for the battles to come.

 

I submit that had the roles been reversed--had Grant risen to command before the war was fully engaged, and McClellan brought in as it was underway, the Union could easily have lost. The addition of McClellan, following severe losses to an already demoralized army, would have delayed the inevitable because, as history has shown, he had a remarkable ability to restore order and morale, while instituting policies that accelerated unit-building and training. He could have stopped the bleeding long enough to push the war forward a bit...but the damage that would have been done had Grant assumed command and attempted to prosecute the war effort with a disorganized, ill-trained army of insufficient size (as it would have been when he received command of it) would likely have been too catastrophic to recover from. The two men served in the capacities they should have, at the time they were needed to do so.

 

I use these two for this post because I believe they illustrate a truth that plagues the Militia today. Our unit leaders are, in my estimation, too like Grant when they should be striving to be more like McClellan. Many are spoiling for the fight, but with an army that is too small, too poorly supported, and essentially unprepared for the battle. They are counting on reinforcements when the battle moves too close to home, but this is too great a gamble...especially when they could just as easily adopt the ways of McClellan at this moment in time and build a large, strong, well-supported, well-trained fighting force that, when unleashed, will be more than adequate to defeat the enemy.

 

I don't want to denigrate the Grant that lives inside of them--we need Ulysses Grant in the very near future, and we need those commanders to step up and transform themselves once more into their inner "Butcher" when the time is right for it. But for now, for this moment, we need the cautious leader, the team-builder, the commander who is loved so much by his men that they recruit others to his side. We need the tactician who battle-plans well before he commits his troops to the field, who is so protective of his troops that he won't commit them to battle until he's certain of victory--and works tirelessly to ensure they have full support services behind them. We need leaders who recognize when it's time to lead the battle, when it's time to lead the recruitment effort, when it's time to lead the team building. In short, we need leaders who recognize the difference between build time, and kick ass time. We need them to channel their inner McClellan, at least for the short window we have to be the engineer rather than the brigadier.

 

Right now, it's the time to build. In truth, it's been time to build for a long time and we've failed a bit in that regard, There isn't nearly as much time to do that now as there once was, but the recruits are coming to us much more than they were before the current troubles reared. Now is the time to put those recruits to good use building the organization--not just preparing to fight. Think of it as handing them fishing poles rather than fish; we're looking to create a sustained fishing program, not just a really good meal for the day. The time will come, as more and more are recruited, when we can choose the best of the fighters and put them on the field to learn how to engage the enemy.

 

But let's get those bodies through the door first. We can't choose the elite if we can't pull in the crowds to begin with. Leading, right now, may mean getting out of your own way. Follow the way of the businessman, the engineer, rather than the soldier. Then, when the time is right for it, redirect your efforts to be more Grant-like. Because a leader knows when to lead, when to follow, and when to get out of (his own) way.

 

Tomorrow, we'll talk about WINNING--OR AT LEAST FIGHTING--THE PROPAGANDA WAR.

 

 

I've already spoken about the propaganda war here many times. It will fall on deaf ears on mymilitia. 

 

That said fuck caution. Anyone fighting defensively in history has lost. Get aggressive and butcher those ANTIFA fuckheads when the time comes. Bayonets, grenades and knives will be my weaponry of choice.

 

Close with them, engage them brutally and viciously and you WILL break their morale and send them fleeing to the hills pissing themselves. When one of them engages you shoot him in the belly and as he pleads and begs for his life kill his friends and make him watch. Then and only then do you consider giving him a modicum of the mercy of death.

 

ANTIFA wants to have a monster that lurks in the dark to fear. I'll be that monster. And I'll give them everything they wished for in fucking spades.

 

By the way there's a video where on of them gets their skull cracked. You can hear him begging if you listen close. Link upon request. That video makes me swoon.

Edited by Rascaldees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Rascaldees said:

I've already spoken about the propaganda war here many times. It will fall on deaf ears on mymilitia. 

 

That said fuck caution. Anyone fighting defensively in history has lost. Get aggressive and butcher those ANTIFA fuckheads when the time comes. Bayonets, grenades and knives will be my weaponry of choice.

 

Close with them, engage them brutally and viciously and you WILL break their morale and send them fleeing to the hills pissing themselves. When one of them engages you shoot him in the belly and as he pleads and begs for his life kill his friends and make him watch. Then and only then do you consider giving him a modicum of the mercy of death.

 

ANTIFA wants to have a monster that lurks in the dark to fear. I'll be that monster. And I'll give them everything they wished for in fucking spades.

 

By the way there's a video where on of them gets their skull cracked. You can hear him begging if you listen close. Link upon request. That video makes me swoon.

I can't help but wonder if you are a liberal posing as a militia member trying to create radicalism cuz your a member of the enemy. 

A well known tactic among liberals.

Edited by Cb85

civiliandefenseforce.org

Some one must lead, when others will only follow! 🇺🇸 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cb85 said:

I can't help but wonder if you are a liberal posing as a militia member trying to create radicalism cuz your a member of the enemy. 

A well known tactic among liberals.

I'm thinking the same about you really. Piss off. You want me to prove my methods work better then find a way for your guys and mine to do combatives, shoot houses and the like and I will PROVE my methods work better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to keep in mind that the war won't start till the majority decide the state of things are now insufferable, similarly as our founders did.

most believe that straw is in the order of the federal government banning semi auto weapons.

 

untill then we are just building a foundation to try and be a deterrent to tyranny, and also have the organization and skills necessary should the need arise to use violence though we hope it not be needed.

 

this war wouldn't be fought in some distant battlefield but in our back yards and amongst our children.

we need temperance as well as determination.


civiliandefenseforce.org

Some one must lead, when others will only follow! 🇺🇸 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Author of the topic Posted
1 hour ago, minicoopertn said:

I was also thinking about a duel system where each person would have a job title/responsibility like you would have in a business or charity and this is what would be used 75% of the time. Then also the same people would hold a military style rank for tactical training and operations purposes. They do not have to relate to each other in regards to power. A private in the militia may have more responsibility and power on the civilian operations side than a captain such as operating a food bank or other community or educational projects. The military ranking system would be used in military style operations. There would be areas of possible crossover where a position like a logistics officer who maybe a private sometimes would be subject to a captain and other times would be over him depending on what is being handled. I am thinking along the lines of more a civilian operating system which has a secondary militant function. We have to be careful not to reinforce the idea that the only purpose of the militia is to train to stand up in a physical fight to those who object to the constitution. I believe this is one of the reasons so many people are turned off to the idea of joining a militia. We are to educate and be politically active but also never forget that the militia is made up of the people for the people. We are to enrich and help our local communities seeing where needs are not being met. To win this fight we have to get the support of our local communities now by being an active part of them. Many make the mistake of thinking that when things get really bad that another 1000 armed fully trained patriots will just show up to support your 10 man militia. It takes a lot more that just bullets, beans and bandaids to effectively fight a war. We need the material support, trust and approval of our local communities and we should never assume or take for granted that we already have it or that it will be freely given when the time comes. It is important for a militia to support their local community if they want the community to support them. This may include defending the constitutional rights of those we may not agree with.

You have so much of this right. If more militia leaders understood some of the points you make here, we'd be much further ahead than where we are now and we wouldn't be so far behind the eight-ball.

 

More Rembrandt, less Rambo. In fact it should be understood by all that Rambo's function is very, very small and short-lived. Useful? Yes--for the minimal point in time that his "services" are appropriate, and the minimal effect he'll have on the overall proceedings. Rambo is the hand grenade; but to win the war, we'd better have more focused fire, tactical superiority, and some good air cover to back us all up. Somehow that message got lost when many current Militia units were formed and began training. It's like they based their entire existence on the dreck from Hollywood, and not enough on the simple realities of life, the teachings of Sun Tzu, and the lessons of war learned over a couple thousand years of fighting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rascaldees said:

I've already spoken about the propaganda war here many times. It will fall on deaf ears on mymilitia. 

 

That said fuck caution. Anyone fighting defensively in history has lost. Get aggressive and butcher those ANTIFA fuckheads when the time comes. Bayonets, grenades and knives will be my weaponry of choice.

 

Close with them, engage them brutally and viciously and you WILL break their morale and send them fleeing to the hills pissing themselves. When one of them engages you shoot him in the belly and as he pleads and begs for his life kill his friends and make him watch. Then and only then do you consider giving him a modicum of the mercy of death.

 

ANTIFA wants to have a monster that lurks in the dark to fear. I'll be that monster. And I'll give them everything they wished for in fucking spades.

 

By the way there's a video where on of them gets their skull cracked. You can hear him begging if you listen close. Link upon request. That video makes me swoon.

 

You're corny as fuck bro...

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...