#i always thought the bottom one was from a british soap opera

[patriotsrising1]

STARTING A MILITIA

All of the volunteer groups, and not just militia's, that I have seen form over the last four decade, usually fail completely or they never live up to their potential. Usually, this is because of what I classify as “The Three Great Mistakes” volunteer groups make when they form, especially militias. If a militia does not avoid these mistakes, then the best scenario is an underachieving group that has limited value. I am going to break down these mistakes and who the solution to the problems to the best of my ability. The purpose of this is to give a new militia the best chance of forming a powerful political and war-fighting capability.

THE FIRST MISTAKE MILITIAS MAKE

The first mistake militias make is emulating the US military. It is perfectly natural that we should do this because how else to form up a group of war-fighters other than to copy the war-fighters that make up our military? But the militia is not the US military. I am going to repeat that, the militia is not the US military and the US military has as a part of its culture something that is pure poison to a militia, or any other volunteer group really, but I am going to limit these posting to just militias.

What is that poison? The poison is the idea that "Rank Has Its Privileges".

Once again, the militia is not the military. In the military, rank does has its privileges, but have you ever thought why an army of a country that believes that all men are equal would allow certain members to have extra privileges?  It happened because when the Colonials were forming the Continental Army, they did what a lot of today’s militias are doing, they copy the military of the home country. For the Colonials, their home country was Britain. In the British Army, at least back then, rank had it privileges because only those with privileges could have rank. The British Army sold officer commissions and only the rich aristocrats could afford them, and they were already privileged when they join and they kept that privilege after they joined. The American Army copied them and so rank still has its privileges.

The U.S. Military can enforce the privileges because they have legal authority over its members. As a militia leader you only have conditional authority over the people that follow you. Think of it this way, there is a recruit going through basic training, let’s say he is in the Marine Corps at Parris Island and a drill instructor orders him to dig a hole and he says, and “Screw you. Dig your own hole, I’m going home.” I think we can agree that this recruit is going to have a really bad day. He can be punished because the Drill Instructor has the legal authority to do so, it comes from the Constitution through the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff all the way down to the Drill Instructor. 

Now, let’s say you are in charge of training militia recruits and I am a recruit and you tell me to dig a hole and I say, “Screw you. Dig your own hole, I’m going home.”

What happens next?

The answer is that I go home and you dig the hole. You have no legal recourse to stop me from leaving. Your authority is conditional, you only have it on the condition that I am willing to obey you. This changes the nature of the authority from the top down authority of the US Military to a bottom up authority. You must recognize the difference between these two concepts and how they are implemented. 

I have seen people get positions of rank or leadership roles time and again, and the position goes to their head and it poisons the group because they are more concerned about being important than in doing important work. In a volunteer group, when someone starts to think they are more important than the rest of the people, you are going to end up with a lot of people pissed off and people will break into factions, and some will just leave because the militia is now just a place where you have soap opera level drama.

WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?

The solution is to change RHIP to RHIR. RHIR is Rank Has Its Responsibilities.

The only proper way to keep the poison out is to understand that leadership in a militia is just another job that needs to be done. As volunteers, with no legal authority, all a militia can be is a group of people coming together for a common cause and no one is more important than anyone else. Yes, you do need officers and sergeants, because you need people who are looking at a bigger picture than someone who is on the front line that has a limited view of what is going on, but you are nothing special if you hold rank and you are NOT more important than anyone else. Besides not being more important than anyone else, a leader has to work harder than other people. A corporal will work harder than a private. A sergeant will work harder than a corporal and lieutenant will work harder than a sergeant, and so forth. Rank Has Its Responsibilities is the only concept that will work. If you introduce special privileges for certain people, you group will implode.

HOW TO IMPLEMENT RHIR

Because authority comes from the bottom up and every leadership positions will be settled by a vote, every person who joins a militia should ask this question when they elect their leaders of any rank. That question is, “Does this person work harder than everyone else?” If the answer is no, then don’t elect them to that position.

Think of it like this. Let us say that I am your commander and you are my second in command and I tell you we need a hole dug here, but you tell me that all the militia members are busy getting important training. There are two responses I could give.

First, I could say, “I don’t care what they are doing, get someone over here to dig this hole.”

Or

I could say, “I guess we need to find ourselves a couple of shovels to get this hole dug.”

Which type of response is the most likely to inspire people to follow me? Which type of leader would you most like to follow?

THE SECOND MISTAKE PEOPLE MAKE IS IN NOT UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE NATURE OF THE MILITIA.

First, for a volunteer group, that has no legal authority to demand obedience, every leader will have to convince their people to do what they ask. This will require leaders to explain what they want and why the want it what happens if they win and what happens if they fail. This is not a weakness. In fact, it is a great strength. Of course, the people you send to do a mission must be competent, but assuming they are, knowing the who, what, when, where, and why of their mission combined with the freedom to find solutions that work at that time and place gives you flexibility that will allow you to exploit opportunities when they come along.

The second point to be made about not understanding what the true nature of a militia is that I need to mention is that the militia is by default, an ultra-light infantry. I've heard the militia called "light infantry" or "Light Foot", but Militia’s do not possess rockets, grenades, grenade launchers, machine guns, light mortars, etc., etc. that every light infantry unit in the world has, and therefore is an Ultra-light infantry. The US military primarily relies on firepower, mainly because no one can match it that arena, so that makes sense, but an ultra-light infantry will have to use different doctrines, strategies, and tactics than even a US military light infantry battalion, although there is always overlap. This lack of firepower necessitates the use of more stealth tactics and demands a high level of expertise from you members.

Third, we also have to recognize that the US military is a strategically offensive institution. It is designed to attack anywhere in the world, and has the equipment and logistics to take the fight to the enemy. The militia is a strategically defensive institution when it comes to war-fighting. War has to come into its sphere of influence. It stays in place to guard and to react to aggression. Don’t confuse being strategically defensive with being tactically defensive, as it may very well be the case that a militia unit may initiate a tactical fight if local circumstances dictate it. Now, this strategic defensiveness only applies to violence, we should be strategically offensive in every other area, such as politics.

The fourth point to note about the nature of the militia is in the realm of Politics, which are forbidden for the US military to be involved in, should be a natural and important part of the militia’s doctrine to fight the evil of the socialists. We should work to take control of the government and the courts, using legal means and only legal means, to stop the infection of socialism in the halls of power and in court rooms. If a large number of militia people can be gathered together and organized on a state level, let us say 5000 people (not all of them have to be under arms), that would make a very potent ground team to put behind a campaign for a militia approved candidate. It could go a long way into compensating for a socialist candidate that has the backing of globalist billionaires.

THE THIRD MISTAKE PEOPLE FORMING MILITIAS MAKE IS NOT WORKING FROM THE BIG PICTURE

You cannot build a house or a stadium or militia without a blueprint. You cannot plan a road trip without a map. You cannot sail the ocean without charts. You have to know where you are going before you leave home. You have to have the maps and charts to get you there. That is the point of this blog. It is a blueprint for a militia. Too many times I have seen a militia, or other volunteer group, try to form from the ground up with no overall plan or any idea of how to do it. You need to know who you are, who you want to become and have a plan for making that change. You need to know the who, the what, the when, the where, and  the how before you start. Of course, we already know why we are forming militias. Our culture has been infected with Socialists and globalists. They are violent, freedom hating, authoritarians. Socialism is a cult, and the high priests of that cult, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro have taught us at least one important lesson about their cult. It demands human sacrifice and the enslavement of people to their cause. These are being used by the globalists who wish to make themselves into a new aristocracy where they are the nobles and we are the serfs. But I don’t want to be a serf, and I suspect you do not wish to become one either. We the People, are banding together to defend ourselves, our republic, and our freedoms.

So, let’s define the characteristics of a successful militia.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A SUCCESSFUL MILITA

A militia should be permanent. An effective militia will be a permanent social fixture and by being permanent, it can be more effective because it can act as a political influencer, operate during natural disasters, collect and manage resources (lands for training, shooting ranges, supply caches for war and natural disaster, etc.) and it can preserve war-fighting knowledge and skills.

An effective militia will have Four Missions.

External Threats. Should the US be invaded, the militia will act as resistance group in areas that have been overrun, and it will act as scouts and as a source of intelligence for the US military.

Internal Threats. This is our current crisis, our republic is under siege from within from the radical leftists of the Democratic Party. The militia stands as citizen safeguard against the infringement on our Natural Liberties.

Natural Disaster. Militias have the benefit of being of already being in place when natural disaster strikes and can deploy immediately.

Political Influencer. A well organized group, with lots of support, can effectively influence elections, keeping good politicians in power and preventing or removing bad actors.

The militia command must be decentralized and organized on a county or regional level. A centralized command system is vulnerable to take down. Cut off the head and the snake dies. The militia will operate like hornet’s nest. If you strike the nest, you will get stung and stung badly. This is exactly what happened when the Minute Men met the Red Coats in the battle of Lexington and Concord.

4.      A militia must operate, like the Constitution, with Christian Ideals. This does not mean that a militia promotes one Christian doctrine or church over another, nor does it mean that non-Christians are not welcomed. It simply means that the militia recognizes that Christian Charity (disaster relief, social efforts) is a necessary component for a strong social group. There is also the Christian recognition of the value of human life (as opposed to socialism where individuals are expendable cogs in a machine that only serves the masters of the party), and the inherent rights and dignities of the individual. (We also need to build up the Kingdom of God, for God will only bless the USA and our efforts if it serves his Kingdom.)

If we take all of the above points into account and also recognize that a militia is an Ultra-Light Infantry Unit, it stands to reason then an effective militia would operate much like the Roger’s Rangers did in the French and Indian War. Roger’s Rangers were savvy in wood-lore, fast, aggressive, and stealthy whether they were on the attack or serving as scouts for the main body. During an invasion, the militia would operate much like the British Auxiliary Forces were designed to do during the Second World War. They were “stay behind” groups whose job was to sabotage and disrupt the rear of a German invasion force. In the preservation of our liberties against an internal threat from an oppressive government, the militia would operate as our Founding Father’s intended it to operate, as a citizen army opposing tyranny. With the ability to respond immediately to natural disasters, the militia can intervene much more quickly than a government agency. A good analogy would the militia is like someone who knows first-aid and begins to help an injured person until an ambulance can arrive. In addition, a militia should be so powerful politically and socially, it can affect the outcomes of elections. For far too long, money, especially foreign money has been influencing our elections. Having an organized and socially powerful group can counteract the negative effects on elections by supporting candidates who would do well, but perhaps do not have the backing of socialist billionaires. One of the necessities of an ultra-light infantry, is they have to act as a guerilla army, at least at first, and for a guerilla army to be able to survive, it has to have the support of the people, which means that militia must operate within and gain the support of the locals. One of the best ways to do that is to be a force for good in the community, which also happens to be one of the criteria for being a Christian.

5.      A militia must have a strong and capable support system.

I’ve separated this point out because militias have poor logistical capabilities, and by poor I mean they don’t have one at all. However, having logistical support is an absolute necessity, but we should recognize that people who join the militia really want to fight and not count beans and bullets. This means the militia needs to recruit non-combatants who are willing to fill the support roles a war-fighting unit desperately needs.

Let us look at an example of what I mean.

Let’s say we want to field a company of militia, 100 men for 30 days. That’s not a lot of men, nor is it a long time to be in the field. Assuming each man eats 3 meals a day, this company will consume 300 meals a day, or 9000 meals for the entire 30 day deployment.

As I write this, a box of 12 MREs cost $132 on Amazon, or $11 per meal. That is enough for 4 men for one day. You would need 750 boxes of MREs to feed our militia company for its 30 day deployment at the cost of $99,000. Even if you could find MREs at 1/10 the cost, it would still cost almost $10,000 to feed the company. Obviously, that is not practical by any stretch of the imagination.

Reality dictates that cost of each meal would have to $.10 or less ($900 for 30 days, which is more reasonable). The only way to achieve that is if the militia grows, harvests, and processes its own food. Thus, Victory Gardens will have to be planted, tended, harvested, and then food brought in to be processed into homemade MREs by dehydrating the food or by freeze-drying it and then distributed to cache centers (Churches, for example). This will require an extensive network of gardeners and food processors but they do not have to be combatants. Almost certainly, this support network will be made up of wives and other women who want to participate but don’t want to be combatants. Once processed into food. This type of network would require people to work together as a group.

Do not discount how beneficial having people cooperate in our group. This type of activity would be fairly easy to organize in say 1920, but in 2020 we are a lot more isolated and we do not socialize as much. Building stronger communities will only benefit the US, and the more the militia is instrumental in building up communities, the more communities will support the militias. (Politicians and bureaucrats hate the thought of people being self-reliant, because it makes them redundant). The food thus collected can defray the cost of the food over time so it can be used during war or during natural disasters. As it ages and needs to be replaced, it can be given back to the militia members and whatever is left over can be given to less fortunate people in the community, thus building up goodwill toward the militia and at the same time building up the Kingdom of God though charity. It’s a win-win. This example only deals with one single thing a militia needs, but it does illustrate how a militia needs a strong support system to function effectively. 

Now that we know what the militia must do, we need to define the attributes, that is the personality of the group as a whole.

MILITIA ATTRIBUTES THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY

When we look at the differences in the amount of money a militia has at the current time versus any government sponsored agency, it is obvious that we are behind the eight ball. This fact needs to be recognized and it needs to be addressed. When you don’t have a super budget funded by grindingly heavy taxes, you have to compensate somehow. Some of the ways that you do this is by maximizing your intangible assets, developing your strategies to maximize your strengths and minimize your weaknesses while neutralizing your enemy’s strengths and taking advantage of his weaknesses, and by creatively compensating for material deficiencies. In the Vietnam War, the communists always had a really huge material and technological disadvantage compared to the massive amount of US war material available, and yet Vietnam is now a communist country.

The four attributes a militia absolutely needs are as follows.

It must have Great Leadership

It must be Well Regulated

It must be Creative

It must have a Warrior Culture

Leadership

If the militia is going to have a prayer in succeeding in preserving our freedoms, it is going to have to have great leadership. (GREAT LEADERS WIN AND BAD LEADERS LOSE AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN CHANGE THAT, SO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE GREAT LEADERS.)

In the years of me trying to figure out how to get a militia (again any volunteer group, as well) to actually work, I looked at lot of “David vs. Goliath” scenarios, and one of them was the Vietnam War. When the war is studied, you find there were lots of reasons as to why the communists won, but the most glaringly obvious American deficiency was its leadership. Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, and General Westmoreland should have been prosecuted for criminal stupidity. General Giap, the North Vietnamese counterpart to Westmoreland, adopted three different strategies during the war to adjust to changing circumstances. Westmoreland, hampered by Johnson and McNamara, only employed one and they would not change their strategy even though their own people were telling them it wasn’t working. Luckily for us, our government bureaucrats haven’t gotten any brighter.

We can see the effect of good leadership versus bad leadership in the American Civil War as well. According to the U.S. Grant, and I assume he would know, the early victories of the Confederacy against a larger and more well-equipped US army was the quality of leadership. The army officers who left service to go home to serve the Confederacy were dispersed throughout the various units raised in the various states while the regular US army was kept separated from the units raised by the various Northern States and incompetent and untrained, but rich and politically well-connected, morons were given rank and put in charge of fighting field units. These political appointments of unqualified officers lost battles and got Yankee soldiers killed by the bushel. By the time Grant took over, a lot of the bad commanders had been replaced and Grant himself understood war better than anyone else at the time except maybe his protégé General Sherman.

Now a great leader is not a perfect leader because perfect leaders do not exist. Every leader has lost a battle at some point, even Grant and Giap, but a great leader wins the war. In fact, Giap lost most, if not all, of the major battles fought during the Vietnam War, and he still won the war.

But what is great leadership?

 Great leadership is being competent in war-fighting, it is flexible in thinking to account for rapid changes in battle, it is humble so the leader can continue to learn, it takes total responsibility for everything that happens, it is inspirational to the people who follow, it sets the example for all to follow, it welcomes input from the lowest of ranks, but it demands excellence and discipline in all things. It is not perfect.

So where do we get great leaders from?

Many militias will not have any combat veterans in them, but they still need great leadership. The answer is great leadership has to be taught to every single militiaman, because the necessary leadership will have to be fostered within the militia unit itself and militia will have to fight within a decentralized command structure that requires personal initiative.

How do you foster leadership in a militia?

Every group that has ever existed developed a culture particular to itself; it is as if each group has its own personality. In the Vietnam War, the communists were able to foster dedication and resolve in their frontline troops, whereas the US military suffered from poor morale as a whole. When you form the militia, you are going to have create your own culture, and in this case, you are going to have to create a culture where good leadership is constantly being developed.

How do know which traits to develop and how do you develop them?

You are going to have to read a book. In fact, you are going to have to read a lot of books. Sorry, I know John Wayne movies a great, but they really won’t teach you about great leadership. But there are some great books by great leaders that can show you the way. The concepts in those books, as I have said, have to be embraced by the entire militia.

So the first book you need to buy is a copy of Jocko Willink’s book “Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win”

This book, written by a Silver Star awarded Navy Seal will set you on the right path to being a better leader. This book should be mandatory reading for the entire militia. Get rid of the movie garbage about how leaders act and get the good information from a decorated war veteran. Now, Jocko has a podcast where he discusses his ideas and has conversations with other great leaders. His podcast should be mandatory listening.

WELL REGULATED

In this sense “well regulated” means well organized.

Again, going back to the communists in Vietnam, one of the things they did really, really well was organization. It was an impressive effort that was unfortunately supporting the evil of communism. They had to be organized to the nth degree because they had to maximize the use of their barely adequate war materials. This is the same predicament the militia will find itself in and cannot be sloppy and inefficient like the bureaucracy of the US government because it doesn’t have virtually unlimited funds like the US government.

The organization has to go beyond just the combat element and it will be super important in the areas of support. In the example I used to show how much MREs would cost, the solution I gave of organized Victory Gardens would require a great deal of organization. This means the militia will have to create a bureaucracy to handle the manufacture, collection, storage, and distribution of war material and to organize training schedules, instruction in necessary skills, and keep records of funds, men, and supplies. The best way to do this is to recruit non-combatants to fill in these ranks.

CREATIVITY

Essential items like Night Vision Goggles are crazy expensive. A militia must use its resources wisely in order to have the necessary war supplies

Because the militia is relatively poor, it has to be able to come up with solutions to problems that are either free or cheap. Earlier I talked about how much it would cost to feed a company of one hundred militiamen MREs for a thirty day deployment, and I gave an example of how that cost could be reduced by organizing Victory Gardens to produce food. The Marine Raiders of WWII and the Green Berets in firebases in Vietnam often had to create their own weapons out material they had available, mostly these involved explosives. The Viet Cong were very adept at making booby traps out of natural materials and taking GI trash and turning it into useful items. They used Coke bottles as canteens, tin cans as cups, they found IV needles left by US combat medics and sterilized them and re-used them. Unexploded US bombs were cannibalized for explosives and turned into homemade claymore mines and land minds. The famous Ho Chi Minh sandals were made from rubber from inner tubes and old tires.

I saw some military surplus sandbags for sale in a catalog, and the cost was about a dollar a bag (Who knows how much the government paid for them, but it was probably too much). If you wanted some sandbags either to protect a particular location or, more likely, use them during a flood to try and stop water from overflowing, it may well cost your militia several hundred to many thousands of dollars to have enough to be effective, depending on the job you need them for. However, my wife and I feed the neighborhood cats. We buy a large bag of cat food about once a week. I don’t like just throwing things into landfills if they can be reused for something else, so I use the empty bags for trash can liners. Some people use pet food bags and repurpose them into hand bags. I’ve always thought they would make great sandbags since they are large enough and are made of a tough material. These are the types of things that could be collected and stored in a central location and then used whenever there is a need and it would cost the militia nothing. I am just using the idea of repurposing pet food bags to make the point that with its limited budget, the militia is going to have to maximize the use every available resource so it has money for war fighting essentials. It has no choice in this matter.

WARRIOR CULTURE

In order for the militia to win, its members must be competent war-fighters.

If you go to war, you want to go to war with people who won’t get you killed by incompetence, ignorance, lack of discipline or a lack of ability. Nobody will want to go to war with you if you are incompetent, ignorant, and have a lack of discipline and/or ability.

What type of person dedicates themselves to self-discipline, pushes themselves physically, and diligently studies all aspects of war while learning the necessary skills to be a competent war-fighter?

The answer is a warrior.

A warrior and a soldier are not necessarily the same thing. Many soldiers are warriors, but many warriors are not soldiers and not all soldiers are warriors.

What’s the difference?

The warrior follows the philosophy of stoicism, which means they don’t whine and fuss when things are tough and they face victory and defeat with the same calm resolve. They pursue logic over emotion. They pursue excellence, not just in war fighting, but in all things. Warriors can be trusted because they believe honor is sacred. Warriors constantly seek out challenges to test themselves and they seek ever greater endurance and strength and they seek perfection in their skills as a war fighter.

How do we create a warrior culture?

You read a book, specifically you read Living the Martial Way: A Manual for the Way a Modern Warrior Should Think, by Forrest E. Morgan.

This book was written primarily for students of the martial arts as a manual on how to develop the warrior spirit, but all you need to do is substitute “militiaman” for “martial artist” to use this book.

The Marines are a good example of soldiers who are competent war-fighters, and one of the reasons they are so good is because they consider the Marine Corps to be a warrior tradition. They have a way of looking at the world that is different than say a civilian because they take great pains to teach their recruits a warrior ethos, by that they see themselves as warriors. What is it that makes up a warrior’s ethos? How do you instill it in your people? That’s exactly the questions this book answers.

THE ONLY ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL THAT WILL WORK

I have been in many different volunteer groups besides being in a militia. Every one of those groups either failed, or never came anywhere near their potential, mainly because of RHIP and egos. If you want to win the battle for our freedoms, there is only one model for a volunteer organization that will actually work because it can be can be used by a group that has only conditional authority. Luckily, it one of the best ways to be organized.

What is the Organizational Model?

When I said that the militia is not the US Military, that statement is 95% true. Of course there is some overlap, and the only model that will work was in fact first employed in the military. It was America’s first special forces type unit and it was the 2nd Raider Battalion in World War II. This is a legendary group, but at the time it was so different that the Marine Corps hated it and it only came into being because President Roosevelt wanted it to happen. The Marine Corp disbanded them at the first opportunity. The unit was founded by Evans Carlson, a man who studied warfare in China under Mao Tse Tong, and he incorporated a lot of ideas in the structuring of his unit from the communists.

I can hear the squeals of outrage now about using communist methods to train a militia dedicated to preserving our freedoms which are inherently anti-communist. Calm down, I am not advocating for communism and neither did Evans Carlson, he adapted the modes of operation to American ideals and used them very successfully to fight the Japanese. The Communists won a lot of insurrections and wars (i.e. Vietnam) and it would be stupid not to learn how they did it. Obviously, communism is one of the greatest evils of all time, but it can be successful in the getting power, as history well proves, even if it must ultimately collapse from the sheer stupidity of its ideology. The value of using their methods, but adapting them our American (Christian) Ideals is that we know our system works in the long term. To reject something that works just because it was used by communists is like losing a battle because you refuse to pick an AK-47 and fight because it was made by communists.

What were the Characteristics of the 2nd Raider Battalion adopted that made it both different and so highly effective?

Intense focus on physical fitness

Tactics based on speed and stealth (Light Infantry tactics)

Increase in firepower of squad

No tasks was ever assigned to individuals, it was assigned to the entire platoon so that everyone in that platoon literally did everything together.

When dealing with civilians, the Raiders were to be fair in their dealings with them and to leave their villages better than when they found them.

The idea that each Raider was important and vital to the mission.

Everyone was encouraged to present ideas that improved their training. 

Every enlisted man was told the battle plans and why they were necessary. (This allowed them to act independently since they knew the commander’s intent)

Everyone was encouraged to contribute ideas to the battle plan

Developing an aggressive (warrior) spirit 

Decentralizing command (pushing decision making down to lower ranks)

Development of individual initiative and the ability to improvise

Training in rugged conditions to be able to operate in rugged conditions

No special privileges, food, or comfort for officers (Officers were social equals to the enlisted)

After battles, the unit was brought together to discuss what happened. People openly discussed mistakes that they had made (humility) and ideas were offered to help limit the same mistakes in the future.

Weekly “Gung Ho” sessions where training critiques and “Ethical Indoctrination” took place. These were always conducted by Carlson himself so every Marine knew what he meant and could talk to him directly.

The term “Ethical Indoctrination” sounds very foreign and very suspicious to our ears. What it actually means, is that Carlson talked about the war, why it was being fought and what it meant to the future of the world and especially America. They talked about the responsibilities (ethics) of a good American citizen both as a soldier and as a civilian. If there were problems, the enlisted were allowed to air their grievances directly to Carlson. Enlisted personnel could openly disagree with an officer if they believed the officer was wrong. Above all, they talked about “Gung Ho”, that means to “Work together in Harmony” in Chinese. The idea is that each Marine (or in our case militia member) was taught that they were absolutely vital to the success of the unit and that they had (have) a responsibility to their fellow raiders (militia members) to pursue excellence so the unit would be excellent, and an excellent unit was the best guarantee that they would both win the battle and survive it.

Does Ethical Indoctrination actually work?

Hoo boy, does it. Marine psychological casualties were extremely high on Guadalcanal, but the Raiders on Guadalcanal, who endured the same hardships as other marines, and some might say the endured more, had exactly one psychological casualty. Many attribute this almost miraculous feat to Carlson’s Ethical Indoctrination.

How did the communists use these principles to obtain power in so many places when communism is so evil?

Simple, they pretended to be the good guys so people will help them. Mao Tse Tung taught his people to read. In the Vietnam War, the communists would help villages out with projects, like cleaning out muck from canals, to get the villagers on their side. But like all things communist, it was a smoke screen and later “free will” offerings were replaced with “mandatory taxes” from those same villages. The reason they pretended to be the good guys was because they needed the support of the local population and they had to play nice until they had the power to demand what they needed.

A guerilla unit does need the support of the people, this is an absolute truth, but unlike the communists, we are actual good guys. If we do something nice for our neighbors it is true we are building up the goodwill of the population so they will support us, but we are also doing it because charity for our fellow man is a Christian mandate. For communists, acts of charity were a means to an end, but for us Christian Charity is the end because it builds up the Kingdom of God.

Following Evans Carlson’s model for the 2nd Marine Raiders, you militia unit will be made up of men who work together to solve problems. Officers and enlisted ranks are partners in the unit. This will make everyone feel they are valuable part of the group, it will harness the collective creativity of the group, and that creativity will allow the group to be flexible to respond to whatever situation they find themselves in at the moment. Don’t dismiss this as unnecessary, it is a powerful weapon.

MILITIA AS A STRATEGIC FORCE

 One of the weaknesses of newly formed militias is that concentrate on the tactical and pay no attention to strategy, but tactics are supposed to support the operations plan, and the operational plan is supposed to support the grand strategy. Since our current crisis involves a socialist insurrection, I am going to concentrate primarily on strategies for that mission. (Remember, an effective militia has four missions.

1. External Threats

2. Internal Threats

3. Disaster Relief

4. Political Influence.

These missions will overlap, so don’t get too hung up about keeping them separate because each mission supports our ultimate goal.)

 One of the most common questions I see asked is “where do I get training” and most of the advice given seems to be on the tactical level, i.e. buy this rifle, you will need a canteen and two pairs of socks, etc. People want to know how to breach a door and clear a building, but they don’t think about asking the question as to why a building should be breached and cleared instead of being bypassed.

 We in the Western World are children of the Greeks. We love to separate and classify things into separate categories. It has served us well in the realm of science and technology. In the East, their philosophies see things as part of a whole. In the US, our military is politically neutral and is kept separate from politics and we consider war and politics to be separate things, in the East they are considered the same thing, means to power. We can see this strategic thinking being played out by China’s rise to prominence in the last few decades. China wants power, it wants power without bloodshed if possible, but it has shown it is willing to shed oceans of blood to get if that is the most expedient means to power. It seeks power by building up its military, by economics, by cultural (social) propaganda, by buying and peddling influence is various countries in Asia, Africa, and South America. It uses industrial espionage to steel manufacturing secrets and intellectual properties. Their army is not the national army, it the army of the Chinese Communist Party. The CCP wants to control the world, and they are making a solid effort in that direction. This type of aggression, by that I mean one that uses every means possible, is typically called 4th Generation Warfare. We saw the successful communist effort at this type of warfare when the communists took over South Vietnam (although technically this was 3rd Generation warfare, 4th Generation Warfare is very much an evolution of 3rd Gen. Warfare.) 

 4th Generation Warfare is extremely useful to smaller and weaker groups, such as the North Vietnamese in the Indochina War with France and the Vietnam War with America. 4th Generation Warfare allows militarily weaker forces avenues of opportunity in which to be on the offensive. It should be obvious that a militia must use 4th Generation Warfare to succeed.

 The purpose of having a strategy is to have a plan that obtains some philosophical goal. For us, our philosophy is that human beings have Natural Rights that are not dependent on any government but are, in fact, endowed by nature and Nature’s Creator and they include Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We feel the best articulation and protection of those rights are encapsulated in the Constitution of the United States of America.

 Our ultimate strategic goal is the continuation and/or the restoration of our Natural Rights as they were articulated by our Founding Fathers by securing our Republic and the Constitution which enumerates our rights and protects those rights. We do this by limiting government overreach, repelling foreign invasions, and suppressing socialist insurrections.

 How do we achieve our ultimate strategic goal that will continue our philosophy?

 We have sub-goals that support and lead to the attainment of the ultimate goal.

 The most important of the sub-goals is the attainment of political and social power. This may surprise, and perhaps dismay, people who want to learn war-fighting skills, but you can quickly discern that having political power is a great and necessary asset, especially when dealing with internal threats to our Rights. Social power is the ability to shape public opinion, and that is no small thing either. Having political power goes a long way in obtaining our philosophical goals without resorting to armed conflict, which is always a win. The North Vietnamese Communists did not win the Vietnam War by military means; it won the war with politics, propaganda, and by mobilizing its sympathizers in the US to turn public opinion against the war. A militia would gain political power in two main ways. First, they would act as volunteers, whether formally or informally, to campaign for people running for public office. In political circles, this is known as the “ground game”. The Tea Party in 1990s was successful in getting some people elected, notably Paul Ryan, who unfortunately turned out to be a snake. However, the point is that grass roots movements can make a politician’s career and they can end a politician’s career. A militia should seek enough power to “make or break” such politicians. The second way a militia can gain political influence is through money and lobbying. To truly be effective in this manner, the militia would need a large reserve of cash, which is only possible if it becomes a permanent institution that can collect revenue to engage in political lobbying. Fortunately, our ideals already line up with already existing institutions like the Tea Party and the Gun Owners of America. Expediency would seem to demand that we partner with them since they are the experts in these fields of endeavor. Social Power is obtained through interactions with society in that such interactions help build positive relationships with the local population. This is absolutely essential for a militia, since it must operate as a guerilla force and local population support is an absolute necessity for such a force to survive. But having Social Power also means being able to influence society to make it stronger, which is a necessity because our society has been under attack since the 1960s and a lot of our national ills come from having a weak society. As I write these words I cannot help but think of how the Socialists through, their feminist and welfare advocating elements, and using their mass media have done such tremendous damage to the traditional family. The results are obvious to see in urban areas where fatherless children end up in gangs and in prisons at a rate far higher than children from solid nuclear families. The destruction of the nuclear family makes it much easier for the Socialists to manipulate the lost children and their welfare dependent unwed mothers, giving them an unprecedented amount of political and social power. They have been successful in destroying once great institutions such as the Boy Scouts. If the militia could be formed on a permanent basis, replacing the Boy Scouts with a militia controlled group for the development of young people (ethical indoctrination) would be a worthwhile endeavor. Anything, really, that helps defeat the liberal indoctrination children receive in public schools would be a good thing. Depending on the source, it is considered an absolute that a government cannot survive is somewhere between 25 – 33% of its population is actively against it. Therefore, we should be working to get at least 1/3 of the population either actively or passively supporting the militia. Obviously, more would be better. 

 The idea of replacing the Boy Scouts with a militia controlled group is just one example of influencing society to create a culture that strong, vibrant, and which demands its Natural Rights be respected. Economically, the militia would promote the businesses of patriotic Americans while boycotting and, if legally possible, degrading the businesses of those who support socialism. Social media is a great avenue for promoting ideas in a social context. Disaster relief is an excellent way to ingratiate your militia into society as are acts of goodwill and charity. In fact, anything and everything that strengthens and promotes our militia and our ideals while weakening our enemies is on the table. Indeed, a militia should always be active, it should be engaged in at least one of its four missions AT ALL TIMES, chipping and hammering away at our enemies.

 Since I mention it in the previous paragraph, it is perhaps time to address a strategic idea that must be engaged in from the very beginning.

 YOU MUST NOT BREAK THE LAW.

 Acting as criminals will alienate you from the very society your militia needs to survive. Normal people do not like criminals. Breaking the law gives the enemy propaganda to use against you. Whatever benefits you might think a homemade explosive or a gun illegally converted to be fully automatic will give you; those benefits aren’t worth spending ten to fifteen years in a federal prison. In fact, getting locked into a cage is the worst thing that can happen to you, to your family, and to your group. Keep your noses clean. Keep them squeaky clean, and concentrate on learning war-fighting skills and building up your group so it can influence society. Remember, military action is only one of our theaters of operation. Use your time out of prison to attack our enemies legally!

An astute reader may, accurately, point out that the second strategy I mentioned of not acting as criminals is more of a doctrine than a strategy and they would be right, but it is such an important doctrine that I elevated it to a strategy. Of course, it is a peace time strategy.

 I would also like to discuss the uniqueness of the American Militia. There are two technical classifications for forces that engage in unconventional war against powerful foes. One is the partisan, a patriot who fights to restore a legitimate government, often against an invader, and the other is a guerrilla who is trying to overthrow the government to implement a new government under their control. The American Militia is a combination of both of these types of forces.

 One of the titles the fear-mongering liberals like the SPLC use to describe militias is “anti-government groups.” The stupidity, or more accurately the deliberate evil, of this statement is obvious. How can any person or group that supports the Constitution of the United States, the founding document of the nation that establishes the very government of the nation be anti-government? If we succeed what happens? We get a government of the people, by the people, and for the people made up of three different branches, which is what we supposed to have now.

 And yet, we may very well find ourselves in conflict with that government, or at least elements within it. The conflict arises, not because we are anti-government, but because we are anti-corruption. We are in conflict because we want the politicians and the bureaucrats to follow the Constitution, the very document they used to acquire power. Being anti-corruption and pro-constitution therefore can definitely make us the enemies of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats within the government who want to twist the government into something else to serve their own self-interest. Because they are trying to overthrow our Constitutional Government, that make us partisans, and yet if the corruption and communist infiltration of our Government becomes bad enough and they obtain power, we will have to fight to replace the government wholesale, which would make us guerrillas.

 This conflict of definitions occurs because we are unique. Americans fight for ideals. When the Minute Men went to war with the British crown, they were not fighting because they were hungry, poor, exploited peasants, they fought for the ideal that they were just as good as any other Englishman and they should have representation along with the taxation that was being imposed upon them, and when it was denied them, they fought and during that conflict decided that they would insure those rights by becoming independent. The Hessian mercenaries the Brits hired to help suppress our revolution, who came from a very poor country, were completely at a loss to understand why a well housed, well fed, and prosperous people would rise up in rebellion. Such a revolt was unheard of in the world, but that passion for the idea that men have rights is what is still driving us today.

  This dual nature of the American Militia is one of the reasons we should not get hung up on the idea of separating our strategies and doctrines into neat little categories, and we should realize that these will overlap and flow and ebb into each other.

 Partisans usually come about in an ad hoc manner, they form as a grass roots movement and engage in conflict with little or no real organization, at least in the beginning. Guerrillas, at least communist guerrillas organize first, and then engage in conflict.

 I am an advocate for organizing first. Why? Because by being organized, we can accomplish more. Right now, because militias are acting like ad hoc partisans, we are missing a golden opportunity to influence our society. Because of the George Floyd riots, millions of people have just bought their first gun. If we were organized and established, the militia could offer them free instruction in safety, marksmanship, and the proper use of a firearm in self-defense. That would go a long way to helping establish the militia as normal and rational part of society, it might even have been a time of recruitment for the militia, but the opportunity has been lost.

 This leads me to the Third Strategic sub-goal supporting our Grand Strategy.

 THE MILITIA SHOULD BE A COMPETENT WAR-FIGHTING FORCE

 One of the reasons Ethical Indoctrination is important, along with the concept of adhering to the idea that honor is sacred (warrior culture) is that these things make you a good person, and good people make for good groups. Here is advice I often given to people who complain about our society and I encourage them to fix it.

 That is the first thing you should be do is be a good man.

 The second thing every man should do is be a dangerous man.

 This advice is the same advice I would give to a militia group. Being competent war-fighters directly serves three of the four missions of a militia. Being competent war-fighters helps to deal with External Threats, Internal Threats, and even number four, Political Influence.

 You might think the war-fighting aspect should only affect missions 1 and 2, but remember we are engaged in 4th Generation Warfare and all things are interconnected. You could even make the case that being competent war-fighters applies to the disaster relief and social charity because we can provide security in time of duress. We need to be competent war-fighters politically because having the political power mentioned in the first sub-strategy is really about controlling individual politicians. As we can see with the continued reign of Nancy Pelosi, having direct political influence over politicians insulated in leftist hive-mind cult centers like California is problematic. But having a well-regulated and capable militia that stands against their hive-mind cult, curtails the activities and plans of the entire organization because they are afraid to implement their plans. Our strategic plan as war-fighters should be to become so dangerous, it intimidates the socialists without us ever having to come to blows.

 Obviously, being competent war-fighters means we can act effectively in case of an invasion by a foreign power or to counter violent leftist action to overthrow our government and install an oppressive socialist abomination.

SETI TEAMS

 I am not referring to teams that should be searching for extraterrestrial intelligence. SETI stand for Self-Educated Training and Instruction Teams.

 One of the questions that keeps coming up from people wanting to be in a militia is “Where do I get combat training.” The truth is, that there are lots of instructors, usually former military instructors who will train you, and many have specialized ranges to train you on, or they will travel to where you are at to instruct you. But these types of instructors are seriously expensive. Assuming your group doesn't have a load of cash lying around (or a former Green Beret as a member), a militia needs to be able to economically train its members. But many, if not most, of the militias being formed do not have large budgets, and there seems to be a dearth of former Green Berets willing to donate their time to help out, they need to come up with another plan.

 But one of the benefits of being well regulated (organized) is that many hands can make for light work. As I write this I am looking at my bookshelf where I have scores of three ring binders full of case studies, military manuals, and treatises on guerrilla warfare and revolutionary activity, along with books covering the same subject. One of these is the United States Marine Corps manual of MOUT, Military Operations in Urban Terrain. This is a fairly thick and comprehensive manual of fighting in cities. A militia that could take that manual and absorb its information and practice its recommended techniques would be a formidable force in urban environments.

 But without trained or experienced instructors, just how would a militia absorb and practice this information and develop the skills the book illustrates?

 The answer is the formation of SETI Teams.

  What exactly is a Self-Educated Training and Instruction Team?

 The title really explains it all. It is people who take instruction from whatever the sources they can find, and working as a team, become self-educated experts in the information the source provides and then teaches others. However, for complicated subjects, multiple teams work together.

 How are these teams organized?

 One of the qualities of great leadership I have not listed, but which is Jocko Willink's book, is the ability to break complicated problems down into component parts and then prioritize what needs to be done complicated problems by systematically dealing with the smaller components. For this example, let us say that a militia commander wants his group to become efficient and effective fighters in urban terrain, but there is no one to help them learn, but they do have a copy of the USMC MOUT manual to work from. (Now it is obvious that the people given the task of learning what this manual has to teach already have some competencies, such as safe gun handling, but this same techniques could be used at the very basic level as well).

 The commander appoints a leader to organize the teams, it may well be the commander himself, but that is not important. The leader then recruits the SETI Teams, for a complicated subject as urban warfare, four teams of three men each are selected. The leader will responsible for learning and then explaining to other militiamen what the doctrines guiding the urban warfare techniques are and why they are in place. The first people he will explain these doctrines to are the SETI teams. Once they know and understand the doctrines governing urban combat, the teams divide the techniques of the first section or chapter to be learned into small groups and these groups of techniques are assigned to each of the SETI Teams. Each team then studies the manual to understand what they are supposed to do and then begins practicing the techniques shown. The practice until they become proficient in the techniques, so proficient that they can then teach other militiamen. The first group the teams will teach will be the other SETI Teams they are working with. Team 1 teaches the other teams the first group of skills they have mastered and once that is done, Team 2 steps up to continue the instruction, and then Teams 3 and 4 in order. Once they are done, you now have 12 instructors (13 if you count the leader) who can teach the rest of the militia the skills in the first chapter of the MOUT manual. Obviously, after the first section or chapter has been mastered, these team, or maybe other teams, continues on until the whole manual is completed and the militia is trained in urban combat.

 Such training can and should be supplemented by formal training if possible. The schools that train people in tactics are expensive, but using this method would allow the militia to send a few people to these expensive training classes be conducted by experienced experts with the intent of bringing back knowledge that would then be incorporated into the group's training. The more knowledge a person has going into a training session, the higher the level of instruction becomes because the instructors don't have to cover the basics, your people will already know them, so your people will be able to get more advanced training and allow them to more easily modify training based on their own real-life experiences. It is easy to think that a group trained by SETI Teams could send someone to a school where they would get more advance instruction than others because they already have a knowledge base, and they bring back the advanced instruction that is absorbed into the SETI Teams, and then another person or small group is sent back for even more advanced training.

 I introduced the concept of SETI teams to answer the problem of getting people trained. It may be argues that this is not a strategy, but I wanted to explain them so that people would understand why being organized is so beneficial.

In my last post, I talked about the SETI Teams. I can accurately predict, based on experience, two particular objections to that idea.

 The first is a legitimate objection, in that the example I used of learning urban combat skills is not something a group would do in as it is being formed, it something an organized group would do and it doesn't help get a group organized.

 This is correct, I only included it as an example. I absolutely believe that a militia must have a master plan before they start, but one of the limitations of working from the top down is the nuts and bolts part comes at the end. I am writing this manifesto as fast as I can because I feel time is of the essence but that means sometimes my editing is not up to standard, and I apologize for the spelling errors and grammar mistakes, but I really am doing this as fast as I can.

 If the USMC MOUT manual is too advanced, the same exact method can be applied to the Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks and that is located here at this link

 https://www.milsci.ucsb.edu/sites/default/files/sitefiles/resources/STP 21-1-SMCT, Warrior Skills, Level 1.pdf

 You won't need to print off the entire book, just the parts that would apply to an ultra-light militia.

 The second objection is not legitimate. In fact it is downright stupid. I've had people tell me in the past they didn't put any stock into “book learnin'”. I will tell you what I told them, the Marines don't write books just for the amusement of it all. They publish books to help spread knowledge. One of the sad facts of life is that a militia commander will have to throw people out of the militia, for a variety of reasons, but stupidity should definitely be one of those reasons. As they say, “You can't fix stupid.”

 As I was writing this, I realized someone might make a false claim against what I said, and that would be that I think the SETI Team concept would be as good as a military training school staffed by experienced combat veterans.

That is not the case.

 I work on the concept of The Learning Curve. When I was a young law enforcement officer, I noticed that the reality of a multi-victim car crash on a busy interstate was a lot more harrowing and overwhelming than working from the diagrams in my text book at the academy. However, I thank God I had those textbooks because they gave me a framework to work from, and any mistakes I made were minor and easily correctable. There is nothing in this world that would have really prepared me to be the one person in charge of a chaotic life and death situation like that, and there was definitely a reality based learning curve involved, but that learning curve was shortened by an academic learning curve. My entire philosophy is that we should work to minimize reality based learning curves as much as possible.

  SUB-SUB-STRATEGIES

  These sub-strategies I am describing must, obviously be built on other sub-sub-strategies. A strategy is a plan that identifies goals, but as that plan develops, obstacles will appear and they will be a need for plans to overcome those obstacles, and those are sub-strategies that will often need sub-sub-strategies and so forth.. Strategies tend to be general ideas with doctrines that address specific needs. Doctrines are the guidelines that allow for strategies to be implemented. Tactics are the nuts and bolts actions that allow for doctrines to be implemented. Again, don't get too hung up on classifications like this, but be aware of them.

 A sub-strategy to the sub-strategy of the militia being competent war-fighters is a strategy dealing with how the militia will become competent war-fighters.

  A MILITIA MUST BE AN UNCONVENTIONAL FORCE, AT LEAST AT FIRST.

 With its lack of firepower, a militia cannot directly confront another group that has military grade firepower. It will use “guerrilla” or perhaps, considering the dual nature of the American Militia it would be more accurate to say that they must engage in Unconventional Warfare (UW) strategies when it comes to military action.

 The basis of the this strategy can be generally described as “Since we are weaker in firepower, we will never directly confront our enemy unless we have both overwhelming local firepower and the element of surprise and we will eschew traditional military objectives like holding ground for more psychological/sociological objectives.

 As I have mentioned, one of the psychological/sociological objectives a militia should be looking for is to become so wide spread and numerous, it intimidates those who would try to systemically try and remove our freedoms. Now, like all strategies, it may not work, these evil people are both arrogant and power-hungry, so nothing may stop them from trying, but by trying to achieve this strategy there would still be a lot of militiamen to respond to the threat.

 DOCTRINES

 Supporting strategies are its doctrines. Doctrines are the guidelines and concepts we use to obtain the strategic goals. Simply put, doctrines tell you how you do something that will hopefully achieve some objective. Doctrines are fluid, they have to change to conform to the reality of the locality you are in. Someone operating from the Rocky Mountains will be operating under a different doctrines than someone operating on Manhattan Island, although there will always be overlap.

  It has been my experience that a volunteer group can only be stable to up to about 30 people because of internal pressure from personality conflicts. I do concede that most of these groups tried to implement the top-down authoritarian model of the US Military, and that a group operating under the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion's model my well be able to create a much larger group that is still stable. Larger groups, even in the military function best with a charismatic leader. For example, Evans Carlson who formed the Raiders was very charismatic. Whether or not a larger group can be formed, there is still the need for militias to be decentralized. A doctrine that takes into account both the idea of decentralization and the need to keep the groups small would be useful.

 THE HEADQUARTERS GROUP TRAINS RECRUITS, CONTROLS THE SUPPORT ELEMENTS, AND DIRECTS THE INDIVIDUAL COMBAT UNITS.

 My first doctrine to support the war-fighting capability would be to define the role of the headquarters group. A successful militia would have both State Headquarters and regional headquarters. How many of these, will depend on population density. When the militia is first starting, every individual belongs to the headquarters group. The headquarter groups sets the training standards organizes the support elements. As the individuals are trained, they will be moved into combat units. For the sake of this post, let’s say the basic combat unit is 30 men and lets call them that a platoon. Each of the platoons would have its own identity and be semi-autonomous. They are semi-autonomous because they need to be able to operate independently, and yet still come together to operate and cooperate on larger missions. Once in a platoon, the militia commander would no longer assign a trained man a task, he would assign it to the entire platoon. By working with platoon-sized elements, the commander would have options when the inevitable personal conflicts would arise. To be ability for the platoons to work together would mean that each platoon would have to be trained to the same standard and that is why you need a headquarters group as a central focus.

 Along with the combat units, there would be support personnel. They would come under the direct control of the Headquarters Unit to allow the combat units to focus on their training. The Headquarters Unit is responsible for training individuals before assigning them to a platoon, or more accurately, letting them chose which platoon they want to belong to after their training is complete. One of the realities of a volunteer organization is that you must allow the men to choose who they fight with, this is not a weakness and you will create more internal pressure inside your units and cause more problems than you would otherwise if you try to force square pegs into round holes. The Headquarters Unit is the element that will do the bulk of the militia's administrative work.

 Rank structure would work in two different ways. In the command group, your rank is determined by the job you are doing. If you have a job that is assigned a major's rank, then you would be a major. If you decided to switch jobs with someone that was doing a Lieutenant's job, you would then be the Lieutenant and the person you switched with would be a major. Obviously, the reason you would structure your rank system like this is to de-emphasize the importance of personal rank (and the ego that goes with it) and focus on doing the job.

 Within the combat elements, rank would be determined by how many people you are leading. Your leadership position will be determined by vote. For example, a leader of a 30 man unit would be a 2nd Lieutenant.

 Now, like all doctrines, this one is fluid and should not be taken as an absolute. It may very well be that you end up with a large number of people happily working together and you operate in bigger units. My selection of 30 people in a militia group is based on my personal experience. Your experience may be different.

LEADERS ARE READERS

 That quote is attributed to Harry Truman, and it is a well-known truism among the most successful of leaders. If you want an excellent militia, you will have to have excellent leaders. There is no give in this matter, you will only win with excellence.

 BOOKS ON LEADERSHIP

Extreme Ownership: How Navy Seals Fight and Win by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin. This is the first book you need to buy. It is the best leadership textbook on the market.

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Steven Covey. A classic in personal development as a leader. We need effective people.

Turn the Ship Around : A True Story of Turning Followers into Leaders  by L. David Marquet. This is a story of how Marquet was sent in as a last minute replacement for the worst submarine in the fleet, and how it ended up achieving the highest evaluation scores the Navy had ever seen since it started operating Nuclear Subs.

These three books are the foundation on which to build a militia. Should a militia emerge based on the leadership foundation provided by these three books, it would be a force to be reckoned with. You will find these books blend together to make a comprehensive philosophy of leadership.

 BOOKS ON STRUCTURING THE MILITIA

  American Commando: Evans Carlson, His WWII Marine Raiders and America's First Special Forces Mission by John Wukovits. This was the book that cracked the code for me when I was searching for how to organize a militia. This is a general history book of the Marine Raiders that will show how to organize your militia.

Gung Ho: The Marine Corps Most Progressive Tradition by H. John Poole. This book is detailed critique of Carlson’s actions on Guadalcanal written by a man who was both and officer and an enlisted man who is an expert on small unit tactics. 

GUNG HO, RAIDER! THE PHILOSOPHY AND METHODS OF BRIG GEN EVANS F. CARLSON, MARINE CORPS RAIDER by Kathleen M. Gomrick, Major, USAF. This is not a book, but it is an excellent report summarizing the effectiveness of Carlson’s method. It is available online at  https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a396537.pdf

 STRATEGIES AND TACTICS OF GUERRILLA WARFARE

  Mao Tse Tung on Guerrilla Warfare by Mao Tse Tung. This little book is published by USMC and is an excellent place to start to learn about how guerrilla forces fight in Asia. It is free online. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/FMFRP%2012-18%20%20Mao%20Tse-tung%20on%20Guerrilla%20Warfare.pdf

Guerrilla Warfare: A Method by Ernesto Che Guevera. This very short book is available online from Marxists.com. I hate dealing with Marxists, but thoroughly enjoy turning their own weapons against them https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/china/che.pdf

 BOOKS ON DEVELOPING DOCTRINES FOR MILITIA COMBAT

 These books were all written by H. John Poole. Poole was an officer who resigned his commission and re-enlisted in the Marine Corps as an enlisted man and retired a Gunnery Sergeant. His is an expert in small unit tactics. His book The Last Hundred Yards is a classic among Marine Corps NCOs, so much that it cost $75 on Amazon. Poole’s writing tends to be repetitive as he tries to drive home his points. His main focus is to get the Army/Marines to invest more training in the basic infantry rifleman instead of high tech gadgets. He firmly and eloquently argues that American Infantry should be stealth based, as their Asiatic opponents since WW2 have been and less dependent on overwhelming firepower. His critics contend that the casualty rates for America’s enemies are always much higher than our military’s casualty rates. However, Poole does not say to give up the firepower, but that firepower combined with stealth would make our infantry even more deadly while reducing American casualties and even civilian casualties. I do not know if Poole is right or not, but I do know that a militia must use these tactics and Poole does a great job in laying out how doctrines that don’t rely on massive firepower can and should be used.

Phantom Soldier: The Enemy’s Answer to US Firepower Discusses the use of stealth techniques and how they are employed to minimize the effectiveness of US firepower.

  The Tiger’s Way: A US Private’s Best Chance for Survival. This continues the theme of using stealth instead of firepower and discusses the merits of “Recon Pull” versus “Recon Push”.

Developing the Militia War-Fighter Culture:

Living the Martial Way: A Manual for the Way a Modern Warrior Thinks by Forest Moran USAF (ret.) This book will help you develop the culture of excellence in your militia. Don't dismiss it because a warrior culture is necessary for a militia to be an effective war-fighting force. 

 These eleven books combined form the nexus of constructing your militia. These books are what I call “Officer Grade Books”, but they should be read by everyone. I call them officer grade books because they deal with the bigger picture that is Strategies, Doctrines, Attributes, and the Structure of a militia. They do not deal with tactics, which are what I call “Non-Commissioned Grade Books”. The military makes all of their tactical manuals available online, and simple search will reveal dozens if not hundreds of military manuals for you to use. It has been my experience the Marine Corps Manuals are more to the point and have easier to understand instruction. However, I am going to give you one bonus book on tactics written by Chris Larsen, the head of One Shepherd Leadership Training Institute. One Shepherd is a civilian school that teaches small unit tactics and their book is probably the best around.

  Light Infantry Tactics: For Small Teams by Chris Larsen. Buy this book.

 One Shepherd's website: 1Shepherd.com

GETTING STARTED

One of the reasons I wanted to start with the big picture is because knowing what you are trying to build is essential to building it correctly. However, implementing the larger picture will take time and people will be impatient to get started on their training. They will want to feel like they are moving forward. So let’s talk about things we can do immediately to get the militia started.

Get the people together in the same room who are willing to work to get the militia started. Hand out 3x5 index cards have them write their name and contact information on the card. Also have them list any special skills or qualifications they may have, even if these do no relate directly to military activity. For example, a high school football coach with a degree is exercise physiology would be a valuable Physical Training Officer. A NRA certified firearms instructor would make a great range officer.

Establish the temporary or permanent leader of the group. If the leader is temporary, then plan to hold a leadership election within the next three to six months to formalize the structure. 

Appoint the following officers. Executive Officer (2nd in Command). Physical Training Officer, Medical Officer, Range Training Officer, Tactical Training Officer, Land Navigation Officer, Defensive Measures Officer.

Hand out notebooks and pens to the selected officers and trainers so goals can be written down and checked off as they are met.

Have a detailed plan of what needs to be done and make definite decisions.

Work out of STP 21-1-SMCT SOLDIER’S MANUL OF COMMON TASKS WARRIOR SKILLS LEVEL 1 (This can be downloaded for free off the internet.)

APPOINT A PHYSICAL TRAINING OFFICER (PTO).

Now, if your militia is geared toward fast movement (and it is), then obviously its members must be in such physical shape as to allow them to move quickly and with great endurance any time it is necessary. This will require the militia to be in good physical condition.

SHORT TERM GOALS:

Have the new PT Officer immediately announce a time every day that the militia will gather for PT. This will most likely be in the evening during the week, and in the mornings on the weekends at militia gatherings. At this point, it may be necessary to let people train on their own, even if it’s a group activity due to a difference in abilities, although a mandatory 30 minute stretching session should be required from all. The actual structure of the PT program will depend on who is involved and the resources available. However, hiking is one of the best ways to exercise for an unconventional fighter. Emphasize the need to move slowly at first as to not cause an injury. Getting medical exams so people can exercise safely should be stressed.

LONG TERM GOALS:

Once your militia is moving, the PT Officer must research the best methods available to improve the physical conditioning of the militia. They will read books, research online, and basically come up with a plan that can deal with the variety of physical abilities and set the final level of fitness required. Set a two week time limit for the PT officer to have a rudimentary plan. 

The PT officer should harness the willingness and expertise of other militia members. As the militia grows, someone may want to take the lead in running an exercise group outside of the main effort. This should be encouraged because people may have conflicting schedules, different levels of fitness, and the more opportunities people have to train, the more likely they are to do so. Therefore, the PT officer should work these opportunities into their plan. 

The PT Officer should also come up with a list of locally available resources. For example, in the moderate-sized city I live in, there is a city park that has a one mile walking/running track and spaced along that track are pieces of outdoor exercise stations, like chin-up bars and all metal elliptical trainers.

Most militia gatherings will be on the weekends. Every such weekend, the PT Officer, or his/her assistant, should conduct physical training.  But in addition to mandatory weekly PT training, the PT Officer should set a date for testing people’s conditioning. Records should be kept of people’s progress, which will help with motivating new member. Due to the nature of the militia, that would probably be every six to eight weeks. The reason being people will be coming into the militia at various times so there will have to be some ongoing repetition to get them integrated into the plan.

The militia being an ultra-light infantry must use speed and stealth to fight effectively.

Speed and endurance are achieved through physical training.

Appoint a PT Officer to organize a PT program.

The PT Officer sets the standard for militia fitness. They may follow the US Army’s test, or make one that suits the need of the militia.

Make sure PT programs are realistic. A 45 year-old factory worker is not an 18 year-old football player just out of high school.

Immediately set a daily time for people to gather for PT even if this does not suit everyone. At the beginning, the PT program may only have stretching and hiking as its core activities, but that’s ok, just GET STARTED!

 APPOINT A MEDICAL OFFICER (MO).

If you start physical exercise and train for combat you will have injuries, and if it is hot you will probably have heat induced injuries. Obviously, someone with a medical background would be best for this role or at least someone with first aid training.

SHORT TERM GOALS:

Assuming you are starting from scratch, the medical officer will need to be assisted as learning everything by themselves is going to be difficult. Get volunteers to help the MO. The SMCT lists 17 different first aid procedures a soldier should know. The MO should assign one or two of these to each assistant as well as themselves to learn, master, and then teach. First, they teach the other trainers, and then when they have that experience, they will teach the rest of the militia. The first aid training need not be done all at once, but may be spaced out over time. This will require records to be kept as to who has completed what tasks. A Medical Officer would also be in charge of health and welfare of the militia.

LONG TERM GOALS:

The goal of the Medical Officer is to not only train the fighters in first aid, but to establish a medical service made up of people who won’t be frontline fighters, but who would are willing to help the militia. These support personnel can man medical tents at events and follow trainees on hikes in case there is an injury during those times. The MO will also be in charge of creating a medical supply dump so there will be enough medical supplies to treat the wounded. The MO will also be in charge of keeping the training records and monitoring the testing sessions. The MO, if they are not already a medical professional, should look into getting a certification from the Red Cross to teach first-aid. Having certified instruction would be very useful in case the militia is called upon to help with a natural disaster and could help with legal matters should some lawyers become involved. Also, the MO would try and increase the medical knowledge of the medical service by bringing in experts (assuming they are not already experts) who can expand on the basics.

Militia members need to be trained to a high standard of first aid.

The CMO is in charge of the first aid training

The CMO will organize and be in charge of the medical service

The CMO will establish medical supply dumps

The CMO will constantly seek to improve the medical training of the militia.

APPOINT A RANGE TRAINING OFFICER (RTO).

Obviously, the militia will need to be trained in firearms. The Range Training Officer will be in charge of safety and marksmanship training along with weapon maintenance and basic malfunction drills. The RTO will locate or set up a range for shooting. 

SHORT TERM GOALS:

The Range Training Officer (RTO) will set up a rifle and pistol safety class for the first official training day. Only those who complete the safety course will be allowed to proceed with actual shooting. The safety course will have to be an ongoing class as new people will arrive and need to be instructed. 

Once the safety course is completed, the RTO will conduct a competency course following the eight steps listed in Subject Area 8 of the SCMT for the M16A2 rifle, adapting the information to the AR-15 rifle where appropriate. Only after each potential shooter demonstrated they can correctly load, unload, and field strip their rifle and pistol will they be allowed to zero their rifle with live ammunition. This will be necessary for every type of weapon the shooter wishes to use. For example, if they want to use both an AR-15 style weapon, they must show competency with that type, but if they also want to use an SKS, then they would need to be checked off on that gun, as well.

The RTO will conduct a basic marksmanship lecture for shooters.

The RTO will supervise the shooters as they zero in their rifles and will give marksmanship advice to those who need help.

Remember, if you don’t have ready access to a range, dry firing is a great way to get the basics down.

LONG TERM GOALS:

Putting holes in paper at known ranges is a necessary start to marksmanship, but as essential as it is, it is not enough. The RTO is going to want to increase the ability of militia shooters to move and shoot, shoot moving targets, shoot around barricades and so forth. There are numerous training sites around the country with professionals who will help you train. 

Safety lecture first

Dry firing drills are useful

Basic loading and unloading should be taught

Basic malfunction clearing drills should be taught

Your ultimate goal is to be able to engage dynamic targets while moving and working with fellow patriots on a fire team.

This is about individual skills, when they are trained in this, they are sent to the Tactical Training Officer for basic instruction on team training.

 APPOINT A TACTICAL TRAINING OFFICER (TTO)

This person will be in charge of training the newly qualified shooter to work in a combat team. The will be working out of Subject Are 4: Survive (Combat Techniques).Unless you are already trained in these tactics, this is another case where several people will have to form a training group under the TTO guidance and they will need to work together to learn to perform the techniques, and once understood, they can teach the rest..

What they learn at this level is a necessary stepping stone to more complicated tactics. These tactics, although basic and simple should be drilled until they are second nature.

SHORT TERM GOALS:

Assign a team of people to learn these tactics and then teach them just like the first aid team.

Even before the students have qualified with their rifles, they can begin to learn tactics. Practice can be done with empty rifles (Triple-checked, of course). If you are in a public place, no rifles are necessary in the beginning. 

LONG TERM GOALS:

There are numerous military manuals dealing with fighting tactics available for free on the internet. Copy them and follow the pattern of having small groups practice and master and then teach these tactics. There are also numerous schools and traveling instructors who have special ops backgrounds that can hired to teach you people.

Train a small cadre, or have a small cadre train themselves so they can teach others.

There are numerous tactical books that can be downloaded for free.

Don’t neglect fighting in urban terrain, it has several advantages to the weaker forces.

You don’t need firearms to practice the basic techniques. You can also use analogs, like airsoft guns to practice these techniques.

You can practice in any open area, even inside a city if you don’t have guns with you.

Airsoft fields will be useful for simulating fights and practicing your techniques.

APPOINT A LAND NAVIGATION OFFICER (LNO):

Using a map and compass is essential for fighting outside of a city. If you do not have someone familiar with orienteering, then I would recommend that you watch some YouTube videos on the matter as being shown how to do it is generally easier than learning from a manual, although that can be done. The LNO will be working from Subject Area 5: Navigate in the SMCT. However, I think civilian orienteering is easier to learn than military orienteering. The book I used as a teenage to learn how to land navigate is “How to be an Expert with the Map and Compass” by Bjorn Kjellstrom. There may be other books out there that are as good, but this is a classic and easy to understand

SHORT TERM: 

This skill may well take longer than to develop than the others, which means it should be started as soon as possible. However, the LNO and his crew should be offering basic classes in no less than 4 weeks.  I recommend buying a United States Geological Survey map of your training area instead of military maps, and using an orienteering compass rather than a lensatic compass, although a military lensatic compass is very rugged. Orienteering compasses very in quality, but a mid-priced one should do well. Suunto compasses are considered to be top of the line, but are pricey. 

The classes presented in logical order.

First Class: Map reading

Second Class: How to use a magnetic compass

Third Class: How to use a map and compass together (triangulating your position)

Fourth Class: Outdoor exercises (i.e. determining pace count over flat and rugged terrain, celestial navigation)

Fifth Class on onward: Actual land navigation challenges.

LONG TERM GOALS:

The goal of teaching map and compass is get people to navigate from point A to point B with the minimum amount of effort spent and without getting lost. After instructions and some basic the training challenges should be conducted both night and day. Also, there are alternative methods to land navigation, although these are inferior in some respects because they are not as accurate, nor as quick, or require specialized skills and equipment like marine navigation’s use of the sextant.

The LNO will research and give recommendation for compasses and obtain maps from the USGS.

Follow the progression of classes, but remember, a “class” may take several nights or sessions to complete. 

YouTube has a lot of instructional videos for land navigation. Take advantage of them.

Civilian orienteering has advantages over the military system, and some militaries use more orienteering based methods.

Practice in different environments and carrying different loads to determine pace count and to familiarize people with those environments.

 APPOINT A DEFENSIVE MEASURES OFFICER (DMO):

Subject Area 17: Defensive Measures has a collection of basic skills that don’t really fit a theme. Follow the pattern of appointing a leader and some helpers in learning the various skills listed and defined in the SCMT manual

IT’S TIME TO BE A LEADER

 You don’t have any military experience? You aren’t a “natural” leader? You don’t like being the center of attention and you just can’t see yourself being the leader of men?

 I think you just need to grow a pair.

 Is that offensive?

 Don’t answer that, because I don’t actually care. Look, I get it, most of us are not Gen. Patton, but we can still be leaders. A leader is nothing more than a person who takes responsibility for the welfare of the group. That’s it. That’s the secret to it all. You see something that needs to be done and you do it, congratulations you are natural born leader.

 Ok, maybe you don’t have the charisma of a rock star, but so what? It is better to build up your leadership cred being a man, or woman, of conviction and integrity instead of relying on how much people like you. Besides, you don’t have to plan on becoming the Supreme Allied Commander, just the person who gets the d*mn thing going. Other people will come along suited for and willing to take on the responsibility at the higher end of the game.

 In this little manifesto I’ve laid out how a group can come together and build a militia that is actually worth something. It does not rely on a single person having an overabundance of charisma, instead it relies on a commitment of the people to the group. 

 Hey, maybe you have a better plan than mine. Great, do that one instead. But if you don’t have a plan, I’ve written one out for you. If you are reading this, you must have at least skimmed it, so you have no excuse but your insecurities. This is not a time for us to be insecure, it is a time to be bold.

 How do you start?  Simple, call for a meeting and set the time and place. If no one shows up, do it again. If that doesn’t work, do it again. Buy a bunch of cheap notebooks and follow the program I set out in this manifesto. This is not rocket science people.

[kimnamjooonz]

Blank Space - Episode 1.

Okay, here’s the first episode of the thing I wrote. 

Episode 1 - Hold Up 

''Hold Up, they don't love you like I love you.''

On the outskirts of the town of Caernarfon in North Wales there was a little farm that belonged to a Aloisius and Helen Ward-Prowse a lovely couple that had made a living out of selling sheep's wool. Around their lovely house there were pictures of two raven haired children: tall and muscular yet inexpressive Clint, and Amanda, the lively and expressive girl that was slowly becoming a grown woman. Amanda Ward-Prowse was the darling of his parents and the soft spot of her strong and mighty brother. But it wasn't as if she needed protecting. as she could take care of herself perfectly well. Sometimes she was more intimidating than her rugby player brother. At 25, Amanda was an accomplished actress that could presume of having moderate success as in many Shakespeare plays but still hadn't had the chance of doing something big with her acting career. That's why she had decided to start from the bottom and audition for a place at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, in London. She had come a long way from starring in her school plays or the summer lessons at the prestigious Cardiff College of Music and Drama, even starring in many plays at the Shakespeare's Globe and small roles in British TV shows or soap operas. But her first important role had come from the Royal Shakespeare Company that offered her one of the main roles in a production of Richard III. That's how she ended up on the stage of the dreamy Royal Shakespeare Theatre. And to that, several productions followed, peaking in a version of Macbeth starring none other than Ian McKellen. Amanda had got dazzling reviews with her performance as Lady Macbeth and reviewers were asking when she'd finally have her big break. One year later, she was still waiting for it while preparing a series of complicated auditions to one of the most prestigious drama schools in the world. It was currently July and Amanda was facing the biggest challenge of her career yet: the final audition. On that warm summer night, Amanda and her best friend Taylor Bevan were just planning the schedule for the next days. Taylor had been her right hand since their school days. From the days Taylor kept saying that she was going to be Amanda's agent when they grew up. They were both sitting on the bed at Amanda's bedroom. This place had changed little since she was a kid. The walls were covered with pictures of herself at different plays, with the animals of the farm, of that time she had won the Caernarfon Junior Challenge of Chopping wood with an axe (she still kept the trophy among the ones she had got from acting) and the picture with Sir Ian McKellen. The only different picture there, was of Amanda's favourite actor since 2013: Sebastian Stan. His picture was between one of Amanda playing Lady Macbeth and another of herself hugging one of her cats. She had an unhealthy obsession with Sebastian in a particular way. She had fan accounts dedicated to him even though she never lusted over him on the Internet (maybe a couple of thirst tweets but that was all). She just tagged him in some posts on Instragram from time to time, captioned with sweet words telling him how much he meant to her. Also, she had never been one of those people who sent hate to any of his former girlfriends even though she had been jealous as hell and she couldn't help it. She had just wanted to grab the axe and kill a bitch. But those thoughts were never expressed out loud. She smiled thru the pain and went on with her life. And she wasn't damaging anyone. Well, maybe herself. God be praised that the guy was single now. Taylor knew about that even though Amanda hardly ever talked about it. Sometimes she wondered if it was sane for Amanda to be so attached to a guy so unattainable but then... she had the weird feeling that Sebastian Stan wasn't so impossible for Amanda Ward-Prowse. She had worked with people like Ian McKellen before, working with Sebastian Stan someday wasn't at all impossible. Amanda was rereading the lines of her monologue for the thousandth time with one of her cats curling on her chest. She had decided to play it safe and had chosen a piece of Lady Macbeth, a role that she had done many times before under more stressful circumstances. ''Take that furry thing out of the bed, he's shedding black fur all over it.'' Taylor grunted. ''Which one is this, by the way?'' ''Sir Frances Drake'' Amanda cuddled the black cat closer to her chest. ''Really, Taylor. You almost live at this house and you don't know the names of the cats?'' she rolled her eyes. ''Tay, can you take a look at my Twitter and see if I have any notifications?'' ''Your twitter is basically a fan account by now. If you make it to the RADA you'll have to change it.'' ''I was planning to have a stage name. Something more impressive than Amanda Ward-Prowse.'' she went on reading the monologue. In Taylor's opinion that was a complete waste of time. Who needed silly social media when she was about to have the most important audition of her life? And the only notification she could have was someone informing the breaking news that Sebastian Stan had eaten a sandwich or something of the sort. And she was partially right. But the news had nothing to do with sandwiches at all. They were more like Sebastian Stan having a date with some mystery woman. For the twits that Taylor could read, there were hundreds of young women thinking that this was an absolute catastrophe. Taylor wanted to laugh. How could they be so silly? It wasn't as if they could date the guy themselves any time soon. Her expression changed when she remembered that Amanda was one of those people who was going to mourn the fact that Sebastian Stan had a girlfriend. ''Why do you have that face?'' Amanda asked with a bit of suspicion. ''Nothing''. Unfortunately Taylor couldn't act or lie decently. Amanda took the phone out of her hands and glanced at the screen. Taylor got ready for any dramatic outburst Amanda may have but it never came. Taylor wondered what was happening. ''So, are you going to say something?'' ''No, why?'' Amanda looked genuinely confused. ''I mean, your celebrity crush has a girlfriend...'' ''And?'' Amanda's voice wasn't even harsh or resigned. It was just indifferent. ''Are you taking me as one of those people who send hate or believe that they may have a chance with him. Let's be realistic, Taylor. That's never going to happen. Now, I have to focus in the audition if I want to succeed in something.'' This was so unlike Amanda that it scared Taylor a little. Where was the obsessive and attached Amanda? Maybe she was too absorbed in nailing her audition. ''This doesn't sound like you. I thought you were part of the 'Let me have your children, Sebastian' club.'' Amanda let the script apart and looked at her friend. ''Really, Taylor? You think that low of me? I'm a professional actress that worked with Ian McKellen. Do you think my biggest concern in this life is having Sebastian Stan's children? Not that I could, even if I wanted to.'' she added. Taylor wanted to punch herself in the face. She was scared that she had said something insensible. ''I'm sorry for that. Sometimes I forget because you speak so lightly about your own body that no one can't take you seriously.'' ''Because there's nothing wrong with it. We all should all be proud of our bodies.'' And there was no doubt that Amanda was proud of hers. She loved her pitch black hair, the stunning pair of deep blue eyes (that in a certain angle looked purple), her tiny waist and long legs. ''Yeah, but remember that not everyone looks like you. Your legs age longer than half of my body. Empathy was never your strength, Amanda.'' She just shrugged her shoulders and looked at the time. ''It's ten. We should go to bed. We have a long day tomorrow.'' ''Just rest. Don't stay up too late watching Doctor Who, Sherlock, Torchwood or any of those shows you like.'' ''I won't'' and Amanda was telling the truth. Whenever Taylor wanted to stay at the Ward-Prowse house she used Amanda's brother's old room. Clint had moved to Cardiff two years ago, he had a wife and played for Cardiff's top rugby team. It seemed that the Ward-Prowse siblings couldn't conform with a normal life and a normal job, they always had to be in the spotlight. ''Okay, we leave tomorrow at six. Please Amanda, don't look hangover.'' ''Who cares if I do? The audition is not tomorrow. And London is full of people with killer hangovers, I won't be the exception.'' ''Whatever'' Taylor left, leaving Amanda alone. Amanda made sure that Taylor was not coming back, grabbed a pillow and threw it at the picture of Sebastian Stan she had on the wall. ''You... bloody idiot!'' she hissed. She knew she had no absolute right of reacting like this but... she was alone in her room where she could vent out her emotions. ''You were better single why the hell would you need a girlfriend. You killed the magic!'' And it was true. The whole fun of having celebrity crushes was to try to reach the unreachable and making stupid dreams inside your head that were never going to happen. But with a freaking girlfriend in the middle, it was just not the same. Except that if she, Amanda, were the girlfriend. But unfortunately she wasn't. She was stuck in Caernarfon, talking to a picture of him. ''Why I have to be so idiotic?'' she buried his face in the pillow for a little while. ''Just stop with the bullshit, Ward-Prowse. You have a bright future, who cares about Sebastian Stan.'' Then she imagined him dating a little nobody, even less known than she was and her blood boiled. Yes, she could accept him dating Emma Watson or Hayley Atwell or a Victoria's Secret angel. But a nobody? Hell, no. Of course she wasn't entitled to an opinion and she wasn't going to say it out loud anyway. This rant was between her and her room walls. It was useless but who on earth cared. She went to Youtube to watch Beyonce's Hold Up music video. It featured Beyonce with a baseball bat hitting things while singing lyrics like 'What's worse, looking jealous or crazy, jealous or crazy?' . Well, she was both. And also ashamed of herself for pulling this stunt even though no one was there to see it. She kept the song on repeat until she fell asleep. Or maybe she never fell asleep and all the weird stuff that was into her head weren't dreams. Taylor found her at five a.m half asleep and half awake, looking like a zombie. When Amanda noticed her presence she immediately turned off the music. If Taylor found out that Amanda had been listening to Beyonce, she was going to guess what was happening in two seconds. And that was embarrassing as hell. ''I just couldn't sleep. I'm nervous'' she normally hated to admit that she was nervous. But it was better than to admit that she had spent the whole night being a jealous ass bitch. ''I was just listening to some Coldplay. They always calm me down.'' Seconds later Amanda's mum showed up. ''Clint just called me. He has some food to give you before you take the train to London.'' ''We're saved'' said Amanda. ''I really didn't want to eat some cheap cookies from the store. Lila may be a local but at least she can cook'' Lila was Clint's wife, a nice simple girl that Amanda considered a local. In her opinion, the dazzling Clint Ward-Prowse deserved better. But of course she had never voiced her opinions out loud. ''Don't call Lila a local'' her mother reprimanded her. ''Just because she doesn't have the same ambitions as you, doesn't make her less of a person. You have too much to learn...'' she added when she saw Amanda rolling her eyes. ''Not everyone wants to be a film star and win BAFTAs and cover British Vogue, Amanda.'' But Amanda wasn't listening. She had her mind somewhere else. What if Sebastian Stan's new girlfriend was a similar version of Lila? No, please, no. Anything but a local, please Sebastian, don't be an idiot. ''Amanda!'' Taylor yelled. ''We have to leave.'' Amanda's parents drove them to the station and they immediately caught a train to Cardiff. Cardiff was Amanda's second home. She had stayed there countless of time while attending special drama lessons at the Royal Academy of Music and Drama there. Also, Doctor Who was filmed there and once she had been lucky enough to score a little role in an episode. It was just a couple of lines for one scene but she had met Matt Smith and Karen Gillan that day. In the train, she was swearing to herself that one day she'll be in Cadiff filming Doctor Who again but this time she'd be the Doctor. Fourteenth or Fifteenth Doctor was good to her. Though the window she glanced at the familiar outline of the city of Cardiff. She smiled, forgetting about bloody Sebastian Stan or her ambitions for a second. Sooner than she had wanted, they got to the train station. She immediately spotted Clint standing at the platform. ''Manda! Looking so happy, as always.'' he said with sarcasm, noticing Amanda's expression. ''She didn't sleep'' added Taylor, blushing a little. Yes, she had a boyfriend and he had a wife but Clint Ward-Prowse was still bloody gorgeous. She was a bit taller than his sister and with a thicker complexion. He had the same pitch black hair as Amanda. The main difference between them were the eye colour. Amanda's eyes were dark blue while Clint's icy blue. ''Typical Amanda. Were you watching Doctor Who or Sherlock?'' ''Any of them. And I slept for a couple of hours.'' she lied. Of course that she was not going to admit that she had spent the night listening to Beyonce. ''Whatever'' he rolled his eyes. ''Lila send you this. She couldn't come, for some reason.'' he said with sarcasm. Of course that he was aware the sisters in law weren't the best friends on earth. They were just too different to agree on anything. They all knew that Lila hadn't made that handmade cookies to Amanda. They were for Taylor, who in Lila's eyes was a much normal and decent person than her sister in law. But Clint was never in a million years going to side against his little sister. Amanda had been the jewel of the family since she was born and this was not going to change. ''We have to leave.'' she hugged her brother tightly. Next time you see me I'll be a RADA alumni. Keep the faith.'' ''I'll never lose faith in you. You're the star of the family. Now go. Bye Taylor, take care of her.'' ''Of course.'' Clint had always been overprotective of Amanda. When they were kids he was her personal bodyguard. He was never going to stop caring about his little sister. ''Amanda, this is the first step to stardom, don't forget it.'' She smiled with confidence before getting lost into the crowd.

P.S. Here we have Amanda being the dramatic fuck she is. 

[justkeeponsimming]

100 Questions NO ONE ever asks!

I was tagged by the lovely @footiegirl04 and she was right, omg this is torture. Just wait for those I’m gonna tag! >:)

1. DO YOU SLEEP WITH YOUR CLOSET DOORS OPEN OR CLOSED? Closed, but my boyfriend usually leaves them open!

2. DO YOU TAKE THE SHAMPOOS AND CONDITIONER BOTTLES FROM HOTELS? OF COURSE! I take everything that is “included” in the price! :3

3. DO YOU SLEEP WITH YOUR SHEETS TUCKED IN OR OUT? Tucked in, but we only use a bottom sheet!

4. HAVE YOU STOLEN A STREET SIGN BEFORE? Yes, I stole a Bon Jovi concert poster off of a roundabout when I was 17!

5. DO YOU LIKE TO USE POST-IT NOTES? Every day. I wouldn’t survive at work without them!

6. DO YOU CUT OUT COUPONS BUT THEN NEVER USE THEM? We don’t really have them here in the UK...

7. WOULD YOU RATHER BE ATTACKED BY A BIG BEAR OR A SWARM OF BEES? Bear! I’m not allergic to bears (and I’m dead either way <_<!)

8. DO YOU HAVE FRECKLES? All over my nose, down my arms and on my hands! :D

9. DO YOU ALWAYS SMILE FOR PICTURES? I don’t like taking photos of myself so no thanks! :)

10. WHAT IS YOUR BIGGEST PET PEEVE? People talking over the top of me. And hiccups! Dx

11. DO YOU EVER COUNT YOUR STEPS WHEN YOU WALK? Nope! I’d get dizzy and walk into things!

12. HAVE YOU PEED IN THE WOODS? I hate bugs so I avoid the woods as much as possible!

13. HAVE YOU EVER POOPED IN THE WOODS? Read above!

14. DO YOU EVER DANCE EVEN IF THERES NO MUSIC PLAYING? All the time. I get bored standing and waiting for stuff! :)

15. DO YOU CHEW YOUR PENS AND PENCILS? No way! I hate it when other people do it too!

16. HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE YOU SLEPT WITH THIS WEEK? Just the one! ;)

17. WHAT SIZE IS YOUR BED? Regular ol’ double!

18. WHAT IS YOUR SONG OF THE WEEK? Thunder - Imagine Dragons!

19. IS IT OK FOR GUYS TO WEAR PINK? Of course! Why should we limit all the pretty colours?!

20. DO YOU STILL WATCH CARTOONS? I watch Star Wars Rebels - does that count?

21. WHAT IS YOUR LEAST FAVORITE MOVIE? X-Men 3 when they stupidly killed off Scott Summers >_<!

22. WHERE WOULD YOU BURY HIDDEN TREASURE IF YOU HAD SOME? My purse because I’m a skrimper and never buy anything!

23. WHAT DO YOU DRINK WITH DINNER? Water mostly, tea if not!

24. WHAT DO YOU DIP A CHICKEN NUGGET IN? BBQ sauce. What else do you eat them with?

25. WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE FOOD? Cottage Pie! 

26. WHAT MOVIES COULD YOU WATCH OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND STILL LOVE? All of the Star Wars trilogy! <3

27. LAST PERSON, YOU KISSED/KISSED YOU? My boyfrienddddd.

28. WERE YOU EVER A BOY/GIRL SCOUT? Nope! I was never cool enough! :(

29. WOULD YOU EVER STRIP OR POSE NUDE IN A MAGAZINE? Oh heck no. No one wants to see that!

30. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU WROTE A LETTER TO SOMEONE ON PAPER? I always send letters to customers at work, so quite common! :)

31. CAN YOU CHANGE THE OIL ON A CAR? Uhhh no way. I’m not that clever!

32. EVER GOTTEN A SPEEDING TICKET? No, which is a huge surprise!

33. EVER RAN OUT OF GAS? No I am like...so paranoid of running out of petrol!

34. WHAT’S YOUR FAVORITE KIND OF SANDWICH? Chicken and pesto <3

35. BEST THING TO EAT FOR BREAKFAST? Omlette! 

36. WHAT IS YOUR USUAL BEDTIME? 9:30pm to 10pm. I really am a little old lady! <3

37. ARE YOU LAZY? Yes. Always. All the time.

38. WHEN YOU WERE A KID, WHAT DID YOU DRESS UP AS FOR HALLOWEEN? Lara Croft! (strange, I know!)

39. WHAT IS YOUR CHINESE ASTROLOGICAL SIGN? The horse I think!

40. HOW MANY LANGUAGES CAN YOU SPEAK? English, British Sign Language, French, German and Mando’a! (star wars)

41. DO YOU HAVE ANY MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS? None, I don’t collect them!

42. WHICH ARE BETTER: LEGOS OR LINCOLN LOGS? Lego - what on earth is a lincoln log?

43. ARE YOU STUBBORN? Not at all! I crumple all the time haha

44. WHO IS BETTER: LENO OR LETTERMAN? Uhhh...who are they?

45. EVER WATCH SOAP OPERAS? Used to watch Neighbours as a kid, but nothing since!

46. ARE YOU AFRAID OF HEIGHTS? Yup! Totally terrified. I have a fear of high buildings/ceilings too!

47. DO YOU SING IN THE CAR? All the darn time!

48. DO YOU SING IN THE SHOWER? Never!

49. DO YOU DANCE IN THE CAR? All the time. How can you sing and not dance?

50. EVER USED A GUN? Never. Does a water pistol count?

51. LAST TIME YOU GOT A PORTRAIT TAKEN BY A PHOTOGRAPHER? At my friends wedding last year! ^_^

52. DO YOU THINK MUSICALS ARE CHEESY? I’m not a musicals fan but I don’t mind them!

53. IS CHRISTMAS STRESSFUL? I love Christmas. Shopping is my favourite part! <3

54. EVER EAT A PIEROGI? What on Earth is that?

55. FAVORITE TYPE OF FRUIT PIE? Rhubarb!

56. OCCUPATIONS YOU WANTED TO BE WHEN YOU WERE A KID? Writer or a vet! :3

57. DO YOU BELIEVE IN GHOSTS? I believe in spirits. I love watching supernatural shows like GA! :)

58. EVER HAVE A DEJA-VU FEELING? Actually no. I’m not that lucky to live things twice!

59. DO YOU TAKE A VITAMIN DAILY? I used to, but I haven’t for a long time!

60. DO YOU WEAR SLIPPERS? Nope. I always fall over them.

61. DO YOU WEAR A BATH ROBE? Yes - like...all the time.

62. WHAT DO YOU WEAR TO BED? Uhhh nothing?

63. WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST CONCERT? Bon Jovi - I was lucky to go to an epic concert!

64. WALMART, TARGET, OR KMART? We have Asda Walmart so I guess I’ll pick that?

65. NIKE OR ADIDAS? Nike! :)

66. CHEETOS OR FRITOS? Wotsits. My guess is that’s the UK equivalent!

67. PEANUTS OR SUNFLOWER SEEDS? Sunflower seeds - not a big nuts fan! 

68. EVER HEAR OF THE GROUP TRES BIEN? Can’t say I have! :S

69. EVER TAKE DANCE LESSONS? Yes - took ballet as a child and it was not fun! 

70. IS THERE A PROFESSION YOU PICTURE YOUR FUTURE SPOUSE DOING? My boyfriend isn’t a big job person, he just works to provide for us! Same as me!

71. CAN YOU CURL YOUR TONGUE? Sure can!

72. EVER WON A SPELLING BEE? I have never entered one - but I don’t think I’d do very well!

73. HAVE YOU EVER CRIED BECAUSE YOU WERE SO HAPPY? Yup. Probably something my boyfriend did!

74. OWN ANY RECORD ALBUMS? I do not :(

75. OWN A RECORD PLAYER? Sadly not!

76. DO YOU REGULARLY BURN INCENSE? Nope. I have candles and stuffs but incense is too strong imo.

77. EVER BEEN IN LOVE? Yes - I am now and I fall in love easily.

78. WHO WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN CONCERT? Nickelback!

79. WHAT WAS THE LAST CONCERT YOU SAW? Bon Jovi

80. HOT TEA OR COLD TEA? Hot tea - when is it ever served cold? Like iced tea?

81. TEA OR COFFEE? Tea all the way!

82. SUGAR COOKIES OR SNICKERDOODLES? Sugar cookies are just biscuits right?

83. CAN YOU SWIM WELL? Nope, I have never learned to swim!

84. CAN YOU HOLD YOUR BREATH WITHOUT HOLDING YOUR NOSE? Not for more than like...10 seconds.

85. ARE YOU PATIENT? I am always patient, even when I shouldn’t be! :S

86. DJ OR BAND AT A WEDDING? DJ. We know a guy who does karaoke/DJ so would be great at a wedding!

87. EVER WON A CONTEST? I won a contest on TV as a kid and won some colouring pencils?

88. HAVE YOU EVER HAD PLASTIC SURGERY? No and I wouldn’t be brave enough to.

89. WHICH ARE BETTER: BLACK OR GREEN OLIVES? None. Ewww olives!

90. CAN YOU KNIT OR CROCHET? I cannot do either. I can barely cross stitch.

91. BEST ROOM FOR A FIREPLACE? Lounge/living room (that’s where I always put them in the sims!

92. DO YOU WANT TO GET MARRIED? I would love to, if my boyfriend asks me again ^_^

93. IF MARRIED, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN MARRIED? Ask me this question in a few years!

94. WHO WAS YOUR HIGH SCHOOL CRUSH? No one. My family thought I was interested in the same gender for a long time. Truth was, there was no one at my school worth crushing on!

95. DO YOU CRY AND THROW A FIT UNTIL YOU GET YOUR OWN WAY? Never. I am such a push over!

96. DO YOU HAVE KIDS? No - but maybe one day!

97. DO YOU WANT KIDS? Yes - but I have a genetic history of twins so....

98. WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE COLOR? Green!

99. DO YOU MISS ANYONE RIGHT NOW? Yes - but he’s only in the next room so it’s not too bad!

100. WHO ARE YOU GOING TO TAG TO DO THIS TAG NEXT?

Omg this took forever. Here we go with the tags: @simsoflove, @simalienn. @storylegacysims, @108sims, @pixeloasis, @snufkinsims, @ginassimming, @kotiij, @nadinemaee, @tacha75, @asterllum, @carmysims, @pooofy, @nutmegspicelatte, @stardustsims and anyone else who wants to do this!

[jordoalejandro]

The Second Annual List of TV Shows I Saw the Past Year

A few things before jumping in.

One, I built the list from scratch, so certain shows may have made big jumps either up or down the list. This isn’t meant to reflect huge changes in the quality of the show or how I view it, but it’s just how the cards fell this year. Plus, some shows get cancelled. Some new shows appear. Things fluctuate. You get it.

Two, this list was, thankfully, much easier to write this year. Mostly because I’m not combining a year and a half’s worth of shows into one list so I was able to cut it down from 61 entries to 47, but also because I’m not going to re-review a handful of these, especially ones that remained fairly consistent in quality. I’ve already sort of said everything that needed to be said about MacGyver last year.

Okay, that’s about it. Let’s get to the list.

47. Inhumans (Season 1 - 2017, ABC) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - This show was surprisingly amateurish, from the writing, to the directing, to the editing, to the music, to the acting. Just top to bottom. And I don’t know why. It seems like there was a budget. I know there are professionals working behind the scenes. And I’ve seen some of these actors turn in good performances before. But absolutely nothing was working here. Nothing happened, nothing made sense, the plot was forced, the dialogue was stilted and awkward, and the tone was all over the place, drifting from soap opera melodramatic to super cheesy to weirdly offbeat attempts at humor that kept falling flat. It was like a master’s course in how not to put together a show.

46. Hit the Road (Season 1 - 2017, Audience) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - This was a real miss for me. It's about a family folk band traveling around in a bus, and even though there’s enough awareness that jokes are made about the band being antiquated and uncool, it’s still not able to save the premise of the show as a whole from feeling really dated. Worse, the characters were all broad and clichéd: the scheming dad, the overbearing mother, the slutty teenage daughter, the horny druggy teenage son, the nerdy teenage son, and the precocious youngest daughter. Look, I don't hate clichés -- lots of shows deal in them -- but if you aren't going to do something interesting with the characters, you have to bring it in the writing, and this show didn't. It wasn't particularly funny, often going dirty rather than being clever, and it too often felt like it was being forced into standard sitcom tropes. They're at a county fair this week. First two minutes: every character states what they're going to do at the fair. None of it is particularly surprising, and then the characters go and have pretty much the exact storyline you expect. Episode over. They're performing at a college next episode. Rinse and repeat.

45. Rise (Season 1 - 2018, NBC) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - This was a really strange show. It felt like it was simultaneously moving too fast and too slow. Story wise, nothing seemed to happen. Episodes would end and I would think back and try to remember what went down in the episode and come up empty. I could rarely tell you how the plots filled 60 minutes of airtime. And yet, timeline wise, things moved really fast. Weeks would pass between episodes and characters and relationships often seemed to do a lot of off-screen growth. I remember thinking on more than one occasion, “Oh, when did that happen? That might’ve been more interesting to see more of on-screen than what we actually saw.” Especially because what we actually saw on-screen was an alcoholism plot that seemed to go on forever and a ton of play rehearsals that covered very similar ground over and over. Also, the main character, Mr. Mazzu, was so dull and very hard to root for. He had near zero personality and seemed to care only really about specifically putting on a school production of Spring Awakening for reasons that never felt strong enough to justify how crazed he was behaving. Like, he was nuts about putting on that play. It was destroying him personally and professionally but he still insisted. Weird show.

44. MacGyver (Season 2 - 2017-2018, CBS) (Last year’s ranking: 52) - It is what it is. Stupid, entertaining background noise. I feel no need to defend myself.

43. The Last Man on Earth (Season 4 - 2017-2018, FOX) (Last year’s ranking: 44) - I had the same problems with this show this season as I've always with it: there were about three episodes of growth and movement and a bunch of filler in between. Intermittent laughs between hours and hours of way too silly fart humor and awkward moments between characters who should’ve been able to move beyond that by this point. (Seriously, these are the last six people on Earth. They've survived awful stuff together for a while. Why can no one talk to one other? Why can't they have the adult conversations with each other that I could've had with my close friends when I was 12?) The show's cancellation saves me because I likely would’ve kept watching it and kept being upset.

42. Me, Myself & I (Season 1 - 2017-2018, CBS) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - This was a sweet show, with an interesting concept and a good cast. Unfortunately, it wasn't really funny. The childhood era stuff probably worked the best, with the present day era being more hit and miss, and the future era getting the least amount of laughs. It felt like a nice show to watch though. I wasn't miserable at the end of 30 minutes. I guess there's something to be said for a show that makes you feel happy, but I (and I guess most audiences, as the show got cancelled) generally want more. Brian Unger was far and away the best part of this.

41. Splitting Up Together (Season 1 - 2018, ABC) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - I’m on the fence about this one. It has some good moments, but it’s not incredibly funny or surprising. It feels sort of like the plot of a romantic comedy film being stretched out over several episodes of a TV show. I’ll probably check out season 2, but I might bail if I start to feel like it’s just killing time.

40. The Orville (Season 1 - 2017, FOX) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - More Star Trek than I’d been hoping for, which is fine but not really my wheelhouse. And it's not like there aren't already a lot of shows doing pretty straightforward sci-fi drama, so it sort of leaves me wondering: why not go a wildly different route? There are a few good sci-fi stories here that make you think, but the show tends to telegraph its turns too much. I honestly don’t try that hard to get ahead of plots -- I try to stay in the moment and let the show go where it's going -- but even I was guessing where the story was heading too often. I'll watch season 2, but I might not stick with it if it continues to play like old episodes of Star Trek with just an occasional joke thrown in.

39. The Gifted (Season 1 - 2017-2018, FOX) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - This show started out interesting but it sort of fizzled as it went on. A lot of the most interesting parts of the story happened in the pilot and many of the plots after started feeling repetitive: the good guys try to sabotage the bad guys, the bad guys try to capture the good guys, back and forth, back and forth. The deeper into the season I got, the more I started to wonder: what are we doing here? What’s the end goal? This is another one I'm on the fence with for season 2. I need more of an indication it's heading somewhere.

38. The Flash (Season 4 - 2017-2018, CW) (Last year’s ranking: 32) - It seemed like not a lot was working for me this season. The big bad never felt particularly threatening or interesting (though there were some good individual beats in the overall story). The show also tried to be funny and whimsical way too much this season and I thought that was a big mistake. They introduced the Elongated Man as a side character and used him for a lot of really broad, really bad body humor comedy (the actor was even doing what seemed to be an early 90s Jim Carrey impression). They brought on Katee Sackhoff for several episodes and let her act nuts and do a crazy over-the-top British accent. They did multiple episodes where Tom Cavanagh played various versions of his character with a bunch of different accents for not a whole lot of payoff. I'm sure all this stuff seemed fun on set at the time, but just watching from home, it felt like they didn't have anybody at the helm to say no and reel them back in. There were quite a lot of cringe-inducing moments. Not that this show should be grimdark -- it should be light and fun -- but it shouldn’t be bad stand-up comedian type stuff either. There’s a middle ground.

37. Riverdale (Season 2 - 2017-2018, CW) (Last year’s ranking: 39) - Almost all the characters are insufferable. Nothing ever stays consistent. People are mad at each other one week, then friends again, then mad at each other. Characters make the worst decisions every single time. This is a stupid show. But... it’s also enjoyable. Its stupidity works for it, like when they did a musical episode based on Carrie and one of the character's moms was cast in the high school play for whatever reason. Or the time when a character went to go find her long lost brother and brought him home to live with her family and then, within like an episode, decided he was evil and hated him for living with her family. (By the way, he was ultimately evil, of course, or at least kind of troublesome, so later, the first character felt justified in sicking a masked serial killer on him.) Or when one of the characters got sent to a straight conversion camp run by evil nuns and a couple of other characters staged a breakout and they got chased through sewers by old nuns. Also, that character they broke out later became an archer or something, and she shot an arrow into the masked serial killer that was terrorizing the town for somewhat vague reasons. They have a vicious gang on the show that's constantly getting into serious trouble, but all the characters in the gang are named like, Burgerface and Hula Hoop. Everything's dumb. Nothing makes sense. Entertaining, though.

36. Arrow (Season 6 - 2017-2018, CW) (Last year’s ranking: 31) - Arrow had a down season as well. It wasn't bad, per se, just somewhat dull. In lieu of one big bad, they threw a lot of villains at the wall, but none of them stuck. They had Michael Emerson for half the season, but they misused him. He's very good at the offbeat, creepy type, but they made him a sort of humdrum evil computer hacker. The villain in the back half was a strange choice, too. He was like your basic run-of-the-mill criminal except for some reason, he had enough money to bribe like three-quarters of this major city's police force and elected officials. It's a weird master plan. It's even weirder when you consider there have been several villains of means on this show before who all could've probably done the same thing. I guess they never bothered to check.

35. Wrecked (Season 3 - 2018, TBS) (Last year’s ranking: 51) - This season did an interesting story that's at least somewhat different from the first two seasons and feels a little fresher, but it's still not an amazing show overall. It's good for some laughs and the fun occasional twist, but it isn't appointment viewing.

34. Corporate (Season 1 - 2018, Comedy Central) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - I liked this show most when it got weird and dark. That was its wheelhouse, and it went there well a few times, but I also felt too many episodes seemed to rely on just hitting the “Corporations are bad” theme over and over without actually attempting jokes. It’s coming back for a second season, so I hope they really lean into that weirdness more.

33. The Blacklist (Season 5 - 2017-2018, NBC) (Last year’s ranking: 34) - The Blacklist had a decent season. It was more fun at the start, when they took everything away from James Spader’s Red and forced him to get creative in rebuilding his empire. The end of the season focused a lot more on the yearlong mystery arc, which was kind of a meh -- all the characters chasing after a fairly uninteresting McGuffin. Whatever the payoff to the mystery is, it isn't going to be enough to warrant how much time they spent on it. They're 111 episodes into the show now, you can only change everything so many times. Whatever revelation comes from it should be weighed against the fact these characters have now spent something like five years working together and growing their relationships. I mean, it won’t be. But it should. There were enough good standalone episodes otherwise, though.

32. Nobodies (Season 2 - 2018, TV Land) (Last year’s ranking: 40) - A really enjoyable comedy. The three leads' chemistry and ability to banter with one another was the constant highlight.

31. Legends of Tomorrow (Season 3 - 2017-2018, CW) (Last year’s ranking: 41) - Legends of Tomorrow never shies away from going silly, even if, at times, that leads it to go to almost eye-rollingly silly levels. Still, when it really embraces that type of storytelling, it can lead to amazing episodes, like this season's finale, which featured one of the most unique big bad season ending battles I've ever seen. The show knows what it is and smartly rolls with it.

30. The Detour (Season 3 - 2018, TBS) (Last year’s ranking: 29) - This is still a funny show -- good physical comedy, not afraid to get weird -- but I honestly don’t even know what it’s about anymore. It’s wandered so far outside of its original premise of "a family takes a disastrous vacation." That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's just that the show had a more unique hook at one point and now it's just sort of a dirty family comedy.

29. Life in Pieces (Season 3 - 2017-2018, CBS) (Last year’s ranking: 46) - I found myself enjoying this season more than the last one. The laughs felt more solid and consistent.

28. The Last O.G. (Season 1 - 2018, TBS) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - It’s not hilarious, but it’s got some laughs. More than anything, this show was sweeter than I thought it might be. I was expecting a lot of jokes about hipsters and technology -- and there are some -- but really it's a show about family, empathy, and second chances. Tracy Morgan is great in this.

27. The Walking Dead (Season 8 - 2017-2018, AMC) (Last year’s ranking: 15) - The Walking Dead still provides some thrills and some great episodes, but it is certainly suffering from a bit of drag at this point. Too many filler episodes and too many draws between warring factions meant to just push the conclusion further down the road. Also, the show, while good at zombie action, is pretty bad at doing people vs. people action, which this past season featured a lot of. I think the show would be better served getting away from the comics a little, creating new stories to explore rather than stretching the plot of 16 episodes to match them.

26. The Assassination of Gianni Versace: American Crime Story (Season 2 - 2018, FX) (Last year’s ranking: 1) - A dark, tragic story, though much more contained than the first season's story and, ultimately, less interesting. The O.J. Simpson season, while generally more entertaining, also had some interesting things to say about celebrity and race. This season had some stuff to say about the sort of quiet prejudice gays faced in the 90s (don't ask, don't tell; police detectives having to treat gay victims of murder with professional respect while trying to hide that they're personally somewhat grossed out by their lives; older gays living semi-closeted or double lives for fear of shame) but it’s mostly about watching Andrew Cunanan, a psychopath, behave like one. You spend a lot of time with him and most of it isn't pleasant. The story structure of the season is interesting choice. It's bookended by the assassination and manhunt, but in the middle, it tells everything that happened leading up to the assassination in reverse order. It's done well enough that the truly tragic figures of the story (the murder victims) have their stories unfold in this fascinating, heartbreaking, slow train wreck sort of way, but it also leads to attempts to (possibly?) humanize Cunanan near the end of the season falling flat, given that we know he does. By the time the season is coming to an end, you're ready for it to happen.

25. Archer (Season 9 - 2018, FXX) (Last year’s ranking: 13) - I do enjoy the ever shifting time periods and places on this show. They're an interesting way to keep things fresh and it's especially fun in the earlier parts of the season when you're seeing how all the familiar characters appear in their new setting. Unfortunately, the show has shifted to a sort of serialized storytelling and it often feels like there isn’t enough plot to stretch over all the episodes. You do sometimes get the sense they're stalling to meet their episode order. Still, the banter between the characters is quality as always, and that's really most of what you come for anyway.

24. Brockmire (Season 2 - 2018, IFC) (Last year’s ranking: 27) - This got less about baseball this year and instead started diving deep into addiction, and, in the process, became so, so dark. I still found it funny, mostly because of Hank Azaria’s fantastic performance, but there were quite a few times this season where this was not an easy watch.

23. Modern Family (Season 9 - 2017-2018, ABC) (Last year’s ranking: 37) - I find Modern Family to still be a good watch. It sort of runs like a Simpsons-esque machine now, churning out mostly decent quality episodes and a few plus episodes but nothing too surprising.

22. The Simpsons (Season 29 - 2017-2018, FOX) (Last year’s ranking: 21)  - Speaking of a Simpsons-esque machine that churns out mostly decent quality episodes with a few plus episodes each season...

21. Bob’s Burgers (Season 8 - 2017-2018, FOX) (Last year’s ranking: 26)  - Bob's Burgers is like that, too.

20. Family Guy (Season 16 - 2017-2018, FOX) (Last year’s ranking: 18) - Also, Family Guy. Though Family Guy tends to swing bigger. It leads to more misses, but bigger hits, like some of my favorite episodes from this season: “Emmy-Winning Episode” and “Follow the Money”.

19. Champions (Season 1 - 2018, NBC) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - I thought this was pretty good. It had some snappy dialogue and was decently funny. It's another one of those family comedies you think might skew mean, but actually manages to surprise you with how sweet it is.

18. Brooklyn Nine-Nine (Season 5 - 2017-2018, FOX) (Last year’s ranking: 23) - Brooklyn Nine-Nine had another good season, but I still find myself emotionally cold about the whole thing. I honestly wasn’t entirely broken up by the cancellation, either, definitely a symptom of liking the show while watching but not caring about it otherwise. But, you know, it was saved and is coming back, so I'll set my DVR and watch it. And I'm sure I'll enjoy it, too. I've just never been less excited about a show I really liked getting saved from cancellation.

17. Ghosted (Season 1 - 2017-2018, FOX) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - I thought the first half of this show's inaugural (and only) season was decent. It was a sort of comedic X-Files that was entertaining enough. It wasn't hilarious, but Adam Scott and Craig Robinson had good chemistry together and it made it an easy enough watch. But then they went on hiatus and brought in a new showrunner (Paul Lieberstein, of The Office), who basically retooled the show and turned it into The Office, if in The Office, except instead of selling paper, they hunted the paranormal. And I actually really liked it! I thought the show became legitimately funny. I thought it found its footing. It introduced some great new characters and, smartly, flipped the success and quality of the agency. Instead of being this winning group who were actually finding and solving paranormal crimes, it made them underdogs -- a scrappy group of government agents basically forgotten about, left alone, looked down upon by the more important, serious suits, struggling to find a reason for their agency to exist. Aside from just being a funnier way to approach things -- failure generally works better for comedy than success -- it allowed me to connect with the characters more. I began to like them more. I began to care about them. And then, when near the end of the season, they actually turned things around, I was happy for them. It's a shame Fox burned off these better, later episodes on a handful of weekends in the middle of Summer, when the only people who were watching were people who were really committed... and me, who rarely if ever gives up on a show mid-season. (And, of course, the majority of those people who stuck around were fans of the way the show was originally, so they didn't take kindly to the change. Again, not me. I'll watch a show I'm not in love with. And sometimes they'll change a show I'm watching and I'll go, "Hmmm, this is actually a better show than the one I'd been watching." But, see, the problem is, I don't think a lot of people watch shows like I do. Most people only watch shows they like.) I think if they had gone this route from the beginning... the show would still have probably been too weird and likely not found an audience and would have gotten cancelled after one season. But I would've enjoyed it even more, so there's that at least.

16. The Alienist (Season 1 - 2018, TNT) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - My only gripe with this show was that it moved a bit slow at times, but other than that it was pretty good. It had a great creepy vibe to it. It looked great. Acting was solid. And it told a very dark, enthralling story, especially for basic cable.

15. A.P. Bio (Season 1 - 2018, NBC) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - I'll admit this felt a little retread-y. It's your basic "Bad Teacher" stuff for the most part (though there were a few glimpses this season of something potentially more than that) but it has a great cast that does well with the material. I don't know if it'll ever ascend from its sort of stock premise, but I enjoy it. (I sort of hope it will, though.)

14. Trial & Error (Season 2 - 2018, NBC) (Last year’s ranking: 28) - Very enjoyable, like season 1, with some good twists and turns and some good jokes. The characters and setting remain the highlights, with basically each episode revealing some crazy tradition or quirk about one or the other.

13. Timeless (Season 2 - 2018, NBC) (Last year’s ranking: 30) - I found this show to still be a lot of fun in its second go-around. They have a good time playing with history and they manage to squeeze in some solid action sequences and a couple of decent love stories, too. I do think, given how hard the battle was just to get this second season, the producers should’ve known the possibility they’d get cancelled a second, permanent time was pretty high. I said last year, I’d hoped they’d take this opportunity to really let loose on the way out the door. They didn’t quite do that, which is a little disappointing but not a deal breaker. What they did do, though, is left the season on cliffhanger, which was a tremendous mistake. It’s shocking to me the producers thought a third season was so guaranteed they could leave their fans (the ones who really fought to bring the show back) hanging like that. They absolutely should've planned for this season's finale to work as a series finale. They, and the fans, lucked out, though, as there’s going to be a TV movie to wrap up the show. Here's to hoping it pays off.

12. Fear the Walking Dead (Season 4 - 2018, AMC) (Last year’s ranking: 16) - Remember what I said in the Ghosted review about watching I show I don’t really love and being happy with big changes to it? Fear the Walking Dead switched showrunners leading into this season. If you ask many of the old fans of the show, this was a horrible decision that ruined the show. Of course, many of these fans will tell you season 3 of the show was better than the mothership show and probably the best season of any zombie show in years. They're wrong on both counts. And I say that as someone who liked the show. But the decision to switch showrunners was good, and season 3 wasn’t God’s gift to zombie-based television storytelling. Fear the Walking Dead was an often frustrating show mostly filled with characters I could not begin to care about. This season did something this show has struggled with for its entire duration: it's given me characters to be interested in. Likeable characters. My favorite episode this season, “Laura,” was basically a fantastic, two character play, featuring two people I'd only know for a few episodes. And I cared more about them than I cared for the characters that had been on this show for the 3 seasons prior. Don't get me wrong, this show can still be frustrating at times, but it's much easier to watch and enjoy when you don't hate more than half the people on screen at any given moment.

11. The Mick (Season 2 - 2017-2018, FOX) (Last year’s ranking: 33) - This show continued to deliver some great physical comedy, some great dirty comedy, and some great performances. It's a shame it got cancelled because it felt like there was a lot of gas left in the tank.

10. At Home with Amy Sedaris (Season 1 - 2017, truTV) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - I really loved this. It's has this great (as could be expected) Strangers with Candy vibe -- weird, dark, and often hilarious. Amy Sedaris is severely underrated.

9. American Dad! (Season 15A - 2017-2018, TBS) (Last year’s ranking: 17) - Another show that's at its best when it's weird and dark. TBS has sort of strange scheduling, and so, according to Wikipedia, I might not have seen all of season 15 yet. I'm judging this based on the 13 episodes that aired in season 15A, I guess. Still, they were a 13 great episodes, the highlight for me being “Shell Game”.

8. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (Season 5 - 2017-2018, ABC) (Last year’s ranking: 7) - I do think this season didn’t quite accomplish what last season did. It felt like there was less money in the show and it sort of showed a bit (like having to do a lot more episodes in the same places to save money on sets). But the show is still one of my favorites to watch. The action is top notch. The storytelling is fun and creative. And, I think most importantly, this is one of the few shows I believe I've ever watched where I legitimately care about all the main characters. They're so well crafted. They're rounded, flawed, vulnerable, loveable. They have different viewpoints. They have great chemistry together. I want to spend more time with them. I’m glad the show’s getting another season, even a shortened one.

7. Arrested Development (Season 5A - 2018, Netflix) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - It doesn't quite reach its peak levels from the earlier seasons, but I think that might be too high a bar to set for it. It's still very snappy and clever and has some of the best running gags on television. Plus, it just feels great to watch the cast get together and play off one another.

6. Animal Kingdom (Season 3 - 2018, TNT) (Last year’s ranking: 5) - I still really love this show -- it's currently my favorite drama on television -- but I do think it took a slight step back from the quality of season 2. They wrote one main character off the show and kept another very main character separate from the rest of the cast for the first half of the season. These aren't inherently bad moves, but here I think it hurt the show a bit. They introduced some new characters to try and add drama and they were more or less successful in doing so, but it just felt like, overall, the show was looking for traction in the early half of the season. Things then shift about halfway through the season and really pick up and get great again, but by then, you only have a handful of episodes left. The show took some risks, they didn't really pay off, but I still enjoyed it quite a bit.

5. Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt (Season 4A - 2018, Netflix) (Last year’s ranking: 4) - Even though there were only six episodes in this season (or half season? Show scheduling has gotten weird. I don't have to think about this stuff when I make my movies list), they were a great six episodes. The show is incredibly funny. The actors turn in amazing comedic performances. I'll take however many episodes I can get.

4. The Good Place (Season 2 - 2017-2018, NBC) (Last year’s ranking: 8) - The show hasn’t lost a step. It builds on season 1 in new and surprising ways while maintaining an engaging story and staying hilarious. It ended on a super intriguing note, too, making me excited to see where it heads in season 3.

3. Great News (Season 2 - 2017-2018, NBC) (Last year’s ranking: 22) - This is the cancellation that hurts me the most this year. The writing really kicked into gear in the 2nd season and started becoming the 30 Rock type comedy I'd hoped for. It was very sharp and very funny. The cast was gelling. The show was putting out quality episodes every week. And... no one was watching, unfortunately. R.I.P.

2. Superstore (Season 3 - 2017-2018, NBC) (Last year’s ranking: 9) - I've really come to love this show. It's a basic concept but it just executes on such a high level week in and week out (for 22 episodes, no less). The writing is excellent and the cast it truly impressive -- it runs maybe 10-12 deep of unique characters that can all get laughs with single lines of dialogue. There were a lot of fantastic episodes this season, but “Sal’s Dead” and “Video Game Release” stand out as among the highlights.

1. American Vandal - (Season 1 - 2017, Netflix) (Last year’s ranking: N/A) - This was just genius. To call this a mockumentary is to do it a disservice. This is a crime documentary. It's just that none of the things in it actually happened and none of the people are real. It's a biting satire of the genre that's handled with such an amazing sense of authenticity, from the way it's shot, to the editing, to the score, you feel like it really could be a precocious, film-loving 16 year old's genuine attempt at a crime doc. The characters, acting, and dialogue all feel grounded and true, and both the comedy and drama of the show are derived naturally from the scenarios -- it never feels forced, and it manages to have some surprising depth at the same time. On top of it all, the central mystery, despite how ridiculous it is, is incredibly captivating. The stakes are real for the characters, so it's very easy to buy in. Amazing work all around.

There you have it.

It was interesting (to me, at least) how some of the shows jumped around the list and other shows stayed in almost the exact same place. Maybe I’m in a different mindset now than I was a year ago. Maybe I’ve grown and matured.

Or maybe I’m just running wild, placing shows based on feeling and seeing what happens.

But isn’t acknowledging being impulsive and careless a sign of maturity?

No. No it isn’t.

Thanks for reading.

- - - - -

Read More:

Annual Lists of TV Shows I Saw the Past Year