#trying to give out first-third place but there were so many equal votes there are lots of first places instead!

[pashterlengkap]

Lauren Boebert called a “carpetbagger” to her face at GOP debate

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) — arguably one of the most anti-LGBTQ+ members of Congress ‚ was called out as a “carpetbagger” at a GOP debate last night as she attempted to win the trust of voters in the new district she’s running in. Boebert currently represents Colorado’s mountainous Third Congressional District, but she almost lost her reelection battle in 2022. Facing numerous scandals and the same Democratic challenger who almost beat her last time, she announced last month that she will run in Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District in the east of the state, dominated by plains but much more conservative — and safer from Democratic challengers — than the Third. Related: Lauren Boebert called out by local paper for knowing nothing about her new district She’s switching districts but locals are mad she didn’t do her homework on her new district. But now she has to run in that district’s crowded GOP primary election, and she’s not quite getting a warm welcome in her new home. At the Thursday debate, none of the eight other candidates on stage said that they would support her candidacy if they weren’t running. An informal straw poll put her in fifth place in the primary, despite her quasi-celebrity status. Never Miss a Beat Subscribe to our daily newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights. “Can you give the definition of ‘carpetbagger’ to me?” state Rep. Mike Lynch (R), one of the other Republicans in the contest, asked her on stage. A carpetbagger is a term that also refers to someone who tries to get elected in an area that they have no real connection with — it’s often applied to career politicians who are seen as selfish and unscrupulous. Boebert tried to quell concerns about the fact that she switched districts to protect her career by saying that she had signed a lease for a home in her new district. “I am here to earn your vote. This is not a coronation,” she said at the debate, according to Axios. “The crops may be different in Colorado’s Fourth District, but the values are not.” She also brought up her family situation. She divorced her husband last year and is trying to portray her move as part of a larger life change, even though she has said in other interviews that she switched districts primarily for electoral reasons. “My boys and I needed a fresh start,” she said. Boebert announced in late December that she would not seek reelection in the Third and would instead run in the Fourth after the Fourth’s congressional representative, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), announced he wouldn’t seek reelection. She explained on Steve Bannon’s conservative podcast earlier this month that too many people were donating to her Democratic challenger in the Third, so she just switched districts. “It’s coming from Hollywood when you have Barbra Streisand coming in and donating to the Democrat, when you have Ryan Reynolds coming in and donating to the Democrat,” she said. “But we need a strong voice there and we have to shut down the Hollywood elites who are trying to buy my current district.” But she has hardly been welcomed with open arms in the Fourth. “Does she think we’re that stupid? Does she think we’re going to be fooled by this trickery?” state Rep. Richard Holtorf (R), another of Boebert’s opponents, asked. “Seat shopping isn’t something voters look kindly on.” Boebert has made numerous anti-LGBTQ+ statements in her two terms in Congress, including using homophobic insults to attack Transporation Secretary Pete Buttigieg for taking care of his kids, telling drag performers to stay out of her district, and accusing transgender people of being terrorists. She got a score of “0” on HRC’s Congressional Scorecard for her first term in Congress, showing her solid opposition to LGBTQ+ equality. She didn’t just vote against LGBTQ+ legislation; she led a press conference in front of Congress to stop the Equality Act –… http://dlvr.it/T1w2dH

[gunpowder-milfshake-discord]

The winners for the visual posts are here! Thank you all for creating wonderful fanworks in this small fandom :)

Two moodboards had the same amount of votes:

Floreleine moodboard by @lilolilyr

Mr&Mrs Smith moodboard by @floreleine

Several artworks are winning together:

Header image of 'Almost Interrupted', Floreleine kiss drawings, Floreleine kiss art, and dressed up Floreleine by @hereforamediocretimenotalongtime

Black and white Floreleine by @cleocatart

And an unanimous vote for the best manip:

Floreleine gif by @girlgoneangsty

And a shared second place for 70s Floreleine by @lilolilyr and first date by @my-gaydar-is-on-point

The voting on the server was fun - and reminder to everyone else, you can vote for the fics and videos on tumblr as well, the polls are still open!

The GM fanwork award nominations have closed, and you can now vote by joining the discord server or, if you can't or don't want to join, vote by replying to this post!

All nominations in the categories art, manip, moodboard, video, fic (<2k) and fic (3k+) can be found below the cut.

You can vote for several works per category, just please don't vote for every single one as that has the same effect as not voting at all!

Moodboard, manip and art - voting open until the 23th of July 2022 (click to see all works):

Videos - voting open until the 30th of July 2022 (so everyone has time to watch them all):

🔫 MariaPurt - Nine Lives (Gunpowder Milkshake AU fanvid) (youtube) https://youtu.be/5cB3OGB0pms

😊 hereforamediocretimenotalongtime - Did you just flirt with me? (tumblr) https://hereforamediocretimenotalongtime.tumblr.com/post/674555521152450560/this-is-canon

💔 The Tales of a Grim Heart - Madeleine x Florence Strange and Beautiful (youtube) https://youtu.be/-k0kSA-mNnA

🎤 thesevenwondersofawitch - sucker punch/DSC crossover (tumblr) https://thesevenwondersofawitch.tumblr.com/post/668073832465170432

👏 hereforamediocretimenotalongtime - Floreleine edit to Di Na Muli (tumblr) https://hereforamediocretimenotalongtime.tumblr.com/post/675533058412347392/lol-i-made-another-floreleine-edit-the

Fics 0-2k words - voting open until the 30th of July 2022 (so everyone has time to read them all):

😉The Look of Love - ba_lailah (~300words) https://archiveofourown.org/works/32713432

😘and we build our home from the rubble of our past - Cloud_Lightning (~800 words) https://archiveofourown.org/works/32596660

🥰It Ain't Gonna Last - kataangfanficer (1k words) https://archiveofourown.org/works/33613921

🤩Good Luck Kisses, Promise Kisses - lilolilyrae (1k words) https://archiveofourown.org/works/33161611

🥳The Room Is Spinning - lilolilyrae (1k words) https://archiveofourown.org/works/38392324

😋Immortals and Librarians - moonflowery (2k words) https://archiveofourown.org/works/36193825

😇Under the Baja Sun - nomisunrider (2k words) https://archiveofourown.org/works/32758297

Fics 3+k words - voting open until the 6th of August 2022 (so everyone has time to read them all):

🍎War of Books - swenfoxx (3k+ words) https://archiveofourown.org/works/32763043

🎃Recursus - Marzi (3k words) https://archiveofourown.org/works/32817148

🐠Because You Knew - lilolilyrae (7k words) https://archiveofourown.org/works/32745535

🍏New Editions - Marzi (10k+ words) https://archiveofourown.org/works/32939356

🫐Thicker Than Water - lilolilyrae (22k+ words) https://archiveofourown.org/series/2446891

🦑Vampire Madeleine and Co - thefallenmutineer (40k+ words) https://archiveofourown.org/series/2451058

If you are not part of the discord server to vote there, you vote by replying with the corresponding emojis!

Replies only, reblog additions don't count as notes from several side-blogs could skew with the results!

You can vote for several works per category, just don't vote for every single one as that has the same effect as not voting at all!

You don't need to feel bad for not voting for a work (or for your work not winning), all the nominations are wonderful, now it's just about which ones are your personal favs!

[nautiscarader]

Nautiscarader’s Wendip Week day 4: Lost key

Wendy and Dipper find and old drive-in cinema with a locked cabinet inside the projector room...

"lost key" really has almost no connection to the story, it was just excuse to use an idea I've had for a while ;)

One summer the two decided to put their passion for old cheesy movies (the worst they could find (la la la)) to action and try to refurbish and old drive in cinema. It worked for exactly one night, because the projector was haunted.

(Ao3)

===================

Dipper Pines has seen a lot of strange things around Gravity Falls: ancient buildings, communes of magical creatures, tasty fat-free food, you name it. And yet, on occasions like these, despite his years of expertise, he was still stumped by his findings.

- Why would anyone build a huge empty billboard in the middle of the woods?

He scratched his head, walking around a huge once-white rectangle, propped between trees that now have overgrown it, blocking it from sight. Only because of its unnaturally light colour he and Wendy have managed to spot it during one of their many walks around the forest.

And it was Wendy that very quickly made him realise that the thing he was looking at was not exactly what he thought it to be.

- Dude, it's a screen! - she exclaimed - This must have been a drive-in theatre!

She spread her arms, and only now Dipper realised how oddly flat the meadow they were on was. He then noticed more and more evidence of her being right: rusty, metal poles he thought to be part of some fences, turned out to be holders for old speakers, though with very little electronics left.

And a huge, moss-covered rock was revealed to be a half-dilapidated carcass of a car that served as a home to some birds that flew way when Dipper uncovered it.

But there was one more mystery, and Wendy was on it, carefully looking around.

- If that's the screen, then the projector must be...

She turned around trying to spot it in the thick forest that have overgrown the place.

- There! Look!

Wendy pointed to a building on a nearby hill they previously thought to be just an abandoned shelter. But a rectangular hole in its wall, pointing towards the screen proved her right once more.

- Jackpot! - Dipper shouted - Let's check it out.

The two didn't have to break in - the door have succumbed to the passage of time years ago, giving Wendy and Dipper a mesmerising sight of an old projector room, filled with antiquated technology, frozen in time, as if they were the first people to explore it.

- Dude... do you think it still works? - Wendy suddenly spoke, as she looked through the hole in the wall at the place they've just left.

The answer became obvious when Dipper pulled the large handle on the wall, and with low, buzzing noise, the equipment woke up from its slumber, though Dipper put it back to sleep, knowing well not to test a potential fire-hazard too much.

- That's awesome! Do you know what that means? - Er, no... - We could, I don't know, renovate this place! This could be a new local attraction!

Dipper's eyes widened.

- You know, this isn't a bad idea! We would need some movies first, though...

He looked around, until he heard Wendy's playful grunt. The red-head was pointing out to a locked, metal cabinet with "Movies" written on it.

- Jackpot again... er, we just need to find a key.

He pointed to the rather imposing paddlock on the door. Wendy snickered.

- Stay back, man, I've got this.

She grabbed her axe and with a precise move, she hit the rusty piece of metal that practically turned to dust, and with a loud clunking noise, the door moved.

Wendy and Dipper eagerly grabbed each wing and opened it ajar, revealing rows of old circular reels of film, covered in only a thin layer of dust, preserved by time.

Dipper grabbed one of them, and gently blew the dust away, revealing the title.

- "Hare goulash"? - he raised his brow - From 1933... wow, this place is from the forties! Old as heck. - Maybe it's old, but it's still one of our finest!

With a loud, cluttering noise, Dipper dropped the metal reel to the ground when a third voice joined theirs. Wendy jumped back as well, and readied her weapon, though she was not quite prepared for what she saw.

A ghost with thick, bushy eyebrows and a moustache appeared from between the reels of old movies, wearing a tuxedo, a bowtie and a comically large glasses.

- Woah, lady, be careful with that axe, I've already cut down on my smoking!

He pointed a ghostly cigar at her and, contrary to his own words, took it back into his mouth, much to both Dipper's and Wendy's confusion.  

- Who are you? - Me? I should be asking you, I didn't know the circus was back in town! You are the weirdest travelling salespeople we've had in years! - Er... we?

Wendy asked the question, just as the answers revealed themselves to them. With more cluttering, two more spectres materialised from the storage closet, one wearing a bowler hat and the other a rather tarnished cylinder, eyeing the two living beings with eerie, wide-eyed stares.

- Woah, nelly, are we back in action? - the second ghost asked - I sure hope they haven't invented color movies, I only have black and white clothes!

The third ghost didn't say anything, but filled the room with melodious tune of his flute, at least until he looked at Wendy, and whistled loudly.

- Hey, watch out! - Dipper stepped forward. - Watch? - the first ghost chimed back, floating around her - Aren't you the ones to do so? We're the actors here! - What the-

Dipper yelped when his vision was obscured by his own vest being tossed over his head by the other two ghosts.

- Well, great, now the spectres have spectators! So, what are you kids doing here? Cos' I hate to break it you, you ain't gonna sell us any cookies to us.

The ghost with rather thick, bushy eyebrows sat, or rather levitated over the chair and produced a large cloud of smoke from what would be his lungs.

- We've just found this place. - Dipper explained, fixing his clothes - So, do you guys live here?

A loud, horn noise filled the room when one of the ghost produced one from nowhere and honked it at Dipper.

- Time-out for the nosy one! You don't say "live" to a ghost, you know. - Okay, okay - Wendy continued - Were you guys locked in this closet? - No complaints from me - the middle ghost answered - I can't imagine a better company than these two.

He hugged his two ghostly friends, much to their displeasure.

- Imagine that happening for sixty years. And he's the one who thinks he can sing! - Er, do you... do you guys have names? - Moustachio, at my service! - the moustache-wearing one bowed, and reached for Wendy's hand, only to grab and kiss his own. - Chorizo! - the second one lifted his hat, revealing two ghostly mice living underneath it - And this one's Honky, you can guess why.

Another loud sound, this time from a trombone filled the room, when Honky greeted Dipper and played his ghostly instrument.

- Okay, that's-that's neat... I guess. I'm Dipper, and this is Wendy.

Dipper introduced them to the ghosts, still standing a few feet away from them.

- We, uh, we were thinking if we could renovate this place... - Why? Are these cobwebs out of fashion?

The ghost grabbed both ends of his moustache and spread it apart, revealing several ghost spiders on an impressive grid of cobwebs.

- Ew! Stop it!

Wendy automatically swiped her axe, slicing the ghost in half.

- Hey, if you think I need to get back on a diet, you could have just told me! - Chorizo spoke, tugging his lower part back as if it was his pants. - No, you don't get it - Dipper continued - Wendy... Wendy just had an idea that we could bring this place back to li-, I mean, make it work again. - So we could play your movies again! They are all yours, right? - Hey, this one's bright! - Chorizo said, putting sunglasses onto his nose. - Hmm...

Moustachio twirled the end of his whiskers, until he grabbed his two ghostly friends.

- Team meeting! And you two, no peeking!

The see-through ghost turned around and he whispered something to the other two. Chorizo chimed in after a while, and sad tune of violin meant Honky gave his vote on the matter.

After just a few seconds, the three turned around and faced Wendy and Dipper.

- After long and heated discussion we came to a *clear* conclusion. - Moustachio spoke - We're old, you're young, so we hate you by definition. Get out of our lawn, it was nice meeting you!

And with that, the ghosts grabbed Wendy and Dipper and unceremoniously tossed them out of the bunker-like building, closing what remained of the door right in front of their nose.

- Oh, you little-

Wendy got up at once and tried kicking the dilapidated door open.

- Is that the pizza? It better be, it's been half a century!   - Open up, you old farts! - Wendy roared - Uh, Wen-Wendy? - Dipper gently nudged her - Maybe we shouldn't be interrupting them...? - Are you kidding me? We could make this place running and have fun, and these three weirdos think they own the place. - Uh, maybe they do? - Dipper raised his brow - I mean, it looks like this place has a whole set of their movies...

Wendy gave him a disappointed stare.

- I thought you were on with this plan... - Uh, Wendy, listen - he quickly corrected himself - I like watching old movies with you, but you know, at your place. I don't need- - But wouldn't it be more fun? To see them on big screen? - We could just... go to the regular movies, you know.

Wendy's smile faded away.

- You're no fun...

She kicked a nearby rock and turned around, and began walking down the hill.

- We-Wendy, wait!

Dipper slid after her, trying not to tumble down.

- Okay, let's-let's say I'm up with... this crazy plan. How could we do this?

Wendy's freckled face lightened, gracing Dipper with a beaming smile. She reached to her pocket and took her phone out.

- Well, answer this: who are you gonna call?

Dipper's eyes widened, as he understood her plan.

- Oh, great, phoneboxes can fit in a pocket now! Hope the bills are equally small. - Moustachio said, appearing out of the ground.

Several hours and one phonecall later, Wendy and Dipper came back to the abandoned drive-in theater, equipped with the best vacuum cleaners they could get.

The two shared knowing looks, nodded and stormed inside the projector room, ready to kick the ghosts' non-existent butts.

- Oh, good, we were waiting for you! We needed a fourth one. - Moustachio, Chorizo and Honky tossed their cards into the air, as the three left their card game. - And the small one can be the joker! - Hey! - Wendy stepped forward - Don't you ever call him that...

She turned on the portable vaccum cleaner and with a steady hand, aimed it at the three, with Dipper quickly joining her, sucking the stale air, and the ghosts with it.

The three spectres let out sharp yells (Honky using a triangle), and grabbed a nearby rail, as their bodies stretched and thinned, being sucked into the machines Dipper and Wendy pointed at them.

But as the two were sure of their victory, the three ghosts escaped their grip with ease, proving they were never in any danger at all, laughing and pointing at the teenagers, floating freely above them.

- Oh come on, using Hoovers to get rid of ghosts? - Moustachio rolled his eyes - We were the ones making comedies for fifty years, and even that plot is too silly for us. - And I bet you didn't even change the bags, we're kinda sick of the dust and all! - Oh, we were not going to trap you here...

Wendy and Dipper smiled at the same time, reaching into their pockets.

- Don't you know that cameras can trap souls?

And with that, the room was illuminated with flashes of light, as the two began shooting the ghosts with photo after photo, making them twist and writhe in after-agony.

A loud piano tune broke the silence, as Honky waved a white flag.

- Alright, alright, stop doing that! - Moustachio yelled - We've already sold our souls to Hollywood, who knows how much we have left.

At once, Dipper and Wendy lowered their "weapons", still wearing the same cocky smiles.

- So, you youngsters want to spend a night at a cinema, eh? Well, I guess it's yours, we can haunt a vaudeville or something. - Nah, you can stay here. - Wendy eagerly countered - We just wanted to do some cleaning...

The two raised their vacuum cleaners and turned them on, this time pointing to the dusty, dusty floor.

===========

It took Dipper a better part of the day cleaning the projector room, and the next four or five days restoring the parking lot.

Wendy offered to cut down the trees that have overgrown the place, and she came back the next day with a few benches made out of the same wood, as the place was certainly not up for any cars anymore.

Dipper took care of the electric circuits, making sure the place was up to the modern standards ("You don't want to know how much worse the Health and Safety inspectors are in the afterlife, kiddo!").

Wendy also nicked some fresh white bedsheets and used them to repair the white screen to properly display the movie.

By the end of a week of tiring work, the theater, though still looking old, was at least brought to a working state, with Wendy and Dipper excited to be it first customers, before opening it to the public.

They walked into the projector room, where the three ghosts turned on the machine, lighting up the glade with white light. But as Dipper was about to pick up a reel of a movie, Moustachio grabbed it and absorbed them into his see-through body, together with the rest of the collection.

- Hey! What gives? - Wendy shouted back. - You know, we gave it a thought, and we're not just gonna play the movies for ya'. - Moustachio spoke - I figured out how to retroactively file a copyright claim on our movies! They're no longer in public domain, they're in boo-blic domain.

The three ghosts grinned.

- If you want to run this cinema, now you have to pay us! - And we will adjust for inflation! - Chorizo added. - What? No! - We should bust you again just because of that joke. - Dipper added - And besides, who told you how to do that?

By now, Dipper should have learned not to ask questions about money in Gravity Falls.

- Hiya kids! - Grunkle Stan?!

Wendy and Dipper roared in disbelief, as the old entrepreneur casually walked into the room, playfully swinging his cane.

- I see you've met my pals! - he grinned jovially and closed his arm around the ghosts in a brotherly hug. - And I gotta tell you, I have huge plans for this place. Look, I stole some microchips or whatnot from Ford and glued them to the cups.

He tilted a large styrofoam cup he was holding, proudly presenting a small, sparkling device underneath it.

- And apparently, now you cannot get refills! You have to buy a new drink every time! And I only kinda understand how it works!

He burst into maniacal laughter, dragging his ghostly friends with him. The men laughed and walked out of the projector room, though only one of them was able to do it without colliding into a wall.

- Well, looks like this is it.

Dipper sighed and turned away, kicking a half-century old can. But he quickly felt Wendy's hand on his shoulder, as she stopped him.

- Maybe... but guess who made camrips of their movies?

She waved her phone, and Dipper's face brightened, before they too burst into a fit of giggles. With the prize in their hand, the two teenagers were soon running away to a much cozier place.

A few minutes later, they were sitting in the dilapidated car, in front of now-empty screen, their faces illuminated by the light of the cellphone. The two laughed, as an actor from the bygone days said the same joke for the fifth time in a row, getting his face plastered with a pie.

- Hey, Dipper? - Wendy suddenly asked, in the middle of a musical number - Yeah? - Thanks for everything. And for... you know, helping me out. - Yeah, shame it didn't work. - Hey, it wasn't that bad. We've had some fun, didn't we?

Even though her face was half-hidden in shadows, Dipper could see a faint blush, contrasting with her gleaming, emerald eyes, which in turn made his cheeks match her.  

Their faces got closer and closer, and suddenly, the warm August night became as hot as noon in the middle of a heatwave. And just as their lips were about to meet, they were drowned in white, bright light and they jumped in their seats as the old speaker crackled with a high-pitched noise.

The two looked at the sign projected on to the screen, and groaned, when the ghost repeated those words.

- Kissing costs extra five bucks!

[thesolotomyhan]

Narcos México: Dating them would include: (3/7)

In the end, Chapito won the vote so imma just leave this here, the next headcannon shouldn’t take long to come out since I already have it done! I hope I did My Chapito justice in this! Enjoy ❤️

Warnings: NSFW!

Tags: @visintaes

Let me know if you want to be added in future posts☺️

Chapo:

Chapito🥺,,, he’s an old school type of guy ok

He was taught to respect women, you can tell that by the way he is with his mother

He’s really, and I mean really, romantic with you

Uggh, I go soft just thinking about Chapito

He wasn’t necessarily nervous when asking you out for your first date, because I can definitely see that you guys were close friends

So he had no sweat when asking if you wanted to go see a movie or something..

The only thing he did seem to worry about was thinking that maybe you were going to reject him and he didn’t want to lose your friendship,,,

Oh god, can you see the smile that shows up on his face when you tell him yes without hesitation🥺

Such a pure ass and loving relationship

And the definition of what a gentleman is

He always wants to make you happy and he wants to be the reason for that feeling

Always buying you antojitos on the way to see you or if you’re both just walking down to the streets of Sinaloa

Dates in his hometown, just hear me out, he loves showing you what he grew up around and what he would do

He would be presenting you to everyone he knows with a proud ass smile as he holds your hand

“Te presento a mi futura esposa”🥺

And All the time, whenever he’s with you, he has his arm slinged around your shoulders because it’s easier to kiss your head

I feel like he prefers to give you small pecks on your lips and your temple in public, it’s such a soft gesture- ughh

But he also loves to just gently grab your face and kiss you before he has to go work

“Te amo, mi vida, cuidate, y llámame si ocupas algo.” Such a worried bby, I’m dying

On your dates, he pulling as much details as he can, like decorating the place really nice, getting you a nice bouquet of flowers and about 95% of the time he’s giving you something his mom sent him with

His mother ADORES you, I repeat, just absolutely adores you, she believes that Chapo scored the lottery with you and you can’t tell me otherwise that she will defend you

I just wow- she sends things she knows you’ll like with Chapo when he goes to see you

I can just see that he’s in a rush to go pick you up for your anniversary date, like he’s already running out the door when his mom calls out to him

“Mijo, espera, ten, llevale esto para mi nuera”

“Pero ma, ya le lleve un regalo ayer”

“Y que tiene? Dile que se los hice con mucho amor, para hoy”

I can’t-

That being said, Cochi is also cheering you guys on from the sidelines, even when he third wheels all the time with you guys

I can just see the time Miguel was throwing his birthday party, Cochi is scoffing in the back of the car because he’s the only one who didn’t bring a date

“Podrían haberme dicho que iban a traer a sus mujeres, me hubiera quedado en la casa”

“Pues, no chingues Cochi, esto es el amor verdadero, algo que tu no entiendes”

The banter between y’all is what I live for

But he low key enjoys being the single funny friend in his eyes

He also just loves seeing his carnal, Chapo being happy with you, someone he’s known and cared for like a younger sister

So, Chapo is always inviting you to come to parties with him because he gets to show you off

And he also really enjoys being around the people he considers his family

You can’t tell me this man will not whisper jokes to you and Cochi about the Arellanos,

Chapo loves seeing you laugh at his jokes and how he’ll bully and get on the Arellano-Felix's nerves

I just know that Chapo would be one to just drag them about how he has no vergüenza bringing his mujer to parties unlike them,,

he has that smile on his face because he just knows he’s getting the rise out of them

Chapito always has you basically squished into his side when you’re sitting down, it makes him feel safe that you’re right at his side and in arms reach

I’m screeching, can you imagine dancing banda with this man🥺

“Vente, vamos a bailar, mi amor”

The way he fucking holds you as he gets carried away with you in his arms- I can’t

I can see Cochi yelling something like

“Que vivan los novios!” Because you know he would, escandaloso el cabrón

just Couple Goals!

You know that time Güero told Chapito he’s not an idea kind of guy when he mentioned building a tunnel

I feel like after that, Chapo would come home to you and just bury himself into your neck,

He would then tell you what happened and how disappointed he was

but you just grab his cheeks and tell him to go for it, prove hector wrong

Because like, cmon that’s hella smart that Chapo would think about building tunnels to transport things

God, you’re his #1 fan and always pushing him to follow his dreams🥺

Hyping him up when he wears his fancy shirts! Ugh

The soft heart eyes he gives you is everything

He’s also always helping you make tortillas calentitos while your making food, I’m so soft

Going back to his mother, can you just imagine the smile he has when he sees his two favorite women bonding and laughing while making food or desserts in his childhood home, I-

Or the way he can let his shoulders slump after a long day when he comes home and your escorting him to go sit down and eat the dinner you made as you kiss his temple

He has that graceful smile because you care for this man with your whole life

Soft! Mornings with him-

he’ll either hold your hand or have you hugged into his side as you both drink cafecito with pan dulce in the morning-

I’m in love with Chapito

NSFW:

Haha, I’m in danger.

Such intimate ass sex with this man, it makes me weak

I don’t know, Chapito gives me soft vibes, ya feel?

🥺,, I’m listening to Hermosa Experiencia by Banda MS, and I’m crying, it describes what I’m trying to say-

Anyways

He’s taking his time getting to know your body and how you react to his movements

Your pleasure comes before his ok, he’s worshipping you like a queen

Soon he’ll know your body better than you:

So, he has to look at your face when you have sex, it just makes him harder than he already is

This man is caressing your body as he thrusts into you and praising how fucking beautiful you look

“Mi preciosa mujer, solo para mi”

He lives for being as close as possible to you, so he’ll have his arms resting near your head as he thrusts into you

I can just see it, the way he wrinkles his eyebrows when he sees you throw your head back from the pleasure as you let out moans

He places his hand on your cheek and lets it rest there from how he makes you feel because it’s just that GOOD-

“te gustó eso, ¿verdad, amor?”

Or The way he sighs as he drops his head in your neck when he feels his orgasm coming up and let’s out muffled groans as he pulls you by the hair to expose your neck more

That’s his favorite spot, your neck, he just really loves giving you kisses there

And the feeling of your hands locking behind his own neck-

Can’t tell me that couch sex is not a thing in your relationship

Like, this is where you’re guiding him back as you both get lost in each other

he gets carried away with kissing you as it is,

Your pushing him into the couch as you straddle him and he looks at you with the most loving expression I’ve ever seen

god the atmosphere is so full of love for each other- I can’t

Going back to exchanging the most intimate kisses as he starts to come back to function normally

He starts to lose his patience when you begin to grind your hips on his as you reach down to unbuckle his belt and pants-

He’s trying to hurry to help you take off your clothes and once your both fully nude in front of each other

The whole situation slows down

FuCk, you’ll grab the side of his face as you stare into each other and he’ll place his hands on your hips as he smiles- I’m gonna cry

When you finally sink down onto him he’ll let out a deep breath as you bite your lip

The most euphoric position for him, and keep in mind it doesn’t have to happen on the couch all the time, he loves this position equally on your bed-

He’s able to just wander his hands all over your body and be able to clearly see how his cock disappears inside you- ok, someone please kick me out

It’s a steady buildup from there that will leave you both being drunk off one another

Like you’ll start by slowly grinding yourself on top of him to soon enough, bouncing on him

When Chapo just can’t hold himself back anymore, he’ll meet you halfway and take over

He pulls you even closer as he gives you the most deep thrusts that have you only remembering his name

Holy Fuck, the ways he groans when you pull on his hair while you’re riding him and digging your nails into his shoulders

Chapito only reserves sex in the safety of your own home when no one is around

I feel like he’s tried having sex somewhere in public with you just for the thrill of it but you both got caught by Cochi

Like Chapo is making you feel so many things at once as you’re looking up at him, gripping his arms, as he just pounds you into the office desk

And neither of you heard when the front doors open from all the fucking noise you’re both making and then you just hear-

“Pinche Chapo, si ibas a hacerlo en público, deberías haberme invitado, no chingen”

You swear you never saw Chapo move so fast to cover you and throw something at the door

“Chinga tu puta madre, Cochi”

You’re just blushing as you both hear Cochi laughing as he hollers to Güero about what he found

Since then, Chapo would rather explode from sexual tension to get home than have you go through that again

But even when he avoids embarrassment in front of his friends he can’t avoid it with him mother

I just know, she would eventually ask you both when you’re giving her grandchildren and when’s the wedding date-

God, don’t get me started on how he’ll treat you after your wedding day- I can’t

He treats you so gentle but just right to get you on cloud 9

[remnantoforario]

Unmerry Men AKA The Problem With Robyn Hill

I’ve been sitting on this rant for a while. I’m sure there are people who have talked this topic to death since Volume 7 ended, and did a much better job than I am about to, but I still feel the need to throw my hat in the ring (or shoot my arrow at the target given the subject matter) and say definitively and without question: that Robyn Hill is a terrible character. 

Get some snacks. This is going to be a long one. 

Let me preface this rant by saying I don’t hate Robyn HIll...in CONCEPT. That last word is very important. 

The idea behind her character is a sound one: Atlas is characterized as a country with a VERY clear disparity between the rich (Atlas)

and the poor (Mantle)

So it makes perfect sense that there would be a Robin Hood (see what I did there) type character that would bridge this gap between the two and seek to make things equal, or at least a little less lopsided. As an idea this is great, but the problem (as with most everything in RWBY) is in the execution. 

Outside of Forrest extolling her praises in the back of a cop car in Chapter 2, the first time we see Robyn is when she stops Clover, Ruby, Qrow, and Penny from reaching the Amity tower site. 

During this introduction, she tries to coerce Clover into disclosing classified government information via her Semblance, and Penny has to expose her ambush tactics. Not the best first impression.

Now in a vacuum, this scene isn’t really that bad. Thanks to (clunky) exposition, we are already aware that there is friction between the military and the Happy Huntresses. As such it makes sense that we the audience first meet Robyn as an antagonistic force against RWBY and their allies.

The thing with this though is that all four of the writers of this volume forgot to lift the perception of Robyn being an antagonist until around the final third of the volume. Objectively, there is no reason anyone outside of her own group to want to trust or follow her. 

The M,K,K, & E are trying to position Ironwood and Robyn in the roles of the Sherriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood respectively. The main problem with this is that they fail to establish Ironwood as a tyrannical threat on par with the Sherriff. 

Does he make questionable decisions? Certainly. Are his choices morally wrong? In some cases, yes. But they are more often than not written in a way where the choices he makes are OBJECTIVELY best for everyone (even if they try to frame it otherwise). 

Closing the borders, hiding the Amity plan, diverting resources to FINISH said plan, and his other tactics (while at times misguided) were done in order to protect as many people as he could from Salem and her forces. They were all calculated risks that clearly took a mental and emotional toll on him. He’s a severely broken man trying to keep whatever he has left from falling apart, but everyone is working against him (including his own allies but that’s another story). 

This brings me back to Robyn. She is hailed as the “Hometown Hero of Mantle”, but all we ever do is see her take shots at Ironwood and Jacques and talk about how much the former ISN’T helping Mantle. My question to her, her hardcore cans, and CRWBY is “What has Robyn done to help Mantle?”. RWBYJNR and various talking heads mention how Robyn is helping the people of Mantle, but because the volume (seemed) so rushed to get to Salem’s arrival, we never see her doing anything that’s not directly tied to the plot. 

She’s not working on Mantle’s wall, she’s not in the streets talking to people, handing out medical supplies, giving away food, or anything that actively helps Mantle. We don’t even see her fight Grimm in the streets until the FINAL episodes of the volume. All she and her group do is actively antagonize the military and steal (which we never see them give to the poor). For someone hailed as the town’s hero, she doesn’t seem to really be doing anything to earn that title.   

After the election night massacre, she openly declares war on Ironwood essentially and begins stealing resources needed for the Amity project, until she is ultimately stopped by Blake and Yang. 

Now in theory I have no problem with Yang and Blake telling her about the Amity plan; my main hang up about it is that Robyn has done nothing to earn this trust. 

Until this point Robyn has been getting in their way as they try to reestablish global communications, but now they suddenly feel comfortable telling this sensitive information to a complete stranger and risking a leak even when they KNOW Tyrian is in the city? Instead of telling her that, why not tell her about Tyrian instead? I’m sure she would want justice for the people he killed. 

Then she is later invited to the Council meeting (despite not being a member) and made aware of classified information that she shouldn’t know of, as well as make a complete ass of herself and show why she probably shouldn’t have won in the first place. 

This leads to her finally believing Ironwood, but eventually that gets tossed out the window at the end of the volume where her actions almost directly lead to Clover’s death.  

As she, Qrow, and Clover are transporting Tyrian back to Atlas, Ironwood’s order to arrest RWBYJNRQO is issued. Now there are three things that are very important to keep in mind here after this order is issued: 

1. Clover is clearly conflicted about following this order. 

2. Qrow is calmly trying to talk things out. 

3. Robyn is NOT under arrest. 

Let me repeat that. ROBYN IS NOT UNDER ARREST.

So as Qrow is level headedly suggesting they all talk it out, Robyn (who again is NOT under arrest) starts a fight that results in Tyrian escaping his restraints, the plane going down (after Tyrian kills the pilot and co-pilot), Robyn herself being unconscious, and Clover being ultimately being murdered. 

Now tell me after all the information is presented, why we are supposed to care for this character? What have the writers done to position her as someone we should invest in? 

A lot of her accomplishments are told to us rather than shown, and whenever we do see her onscreen she’s mostly a nuisance that makes pretty much any situation she’s in worse. Yes, I know this is just one volume and she will obviously be a central character in V8 and possibly 9, but the damage has been done. Any attempt to salvage her will just be cleaning up the fall out from V7. 

Now since I’m not one of those people that likes to complain for the sake of it, I’ll voice my opinion on how Robyn could have been written better. 

The first thing we do is distance her from the Happy Huntresses. She will still be the leader, but that information won’t be revealed until AFTER the election. It’s not really a good look for a vigilante to try and run for a public office if they are still breaking the law. That’s like Bruce Wayne running for mayor of Gotham AS Batman (though the people would likely still vote for him). 

So as far as the public (including Ironwood and RWBYJNRQO) are concerned, Robyn is a normal Mantle city official and Joanna Greenleaf is the leader of the Huntresses. For those of you who don’t remember who she is (and I don’t blame you), this is Joanna Greenleaf: 

The second thing I’m going to do is give her a more established connection to Ironwood. My idea? Former military. Robyn was once a part of the Atlas military’s intelligence and recon division because of her lie detecting semblance. When she discovers corruption within the system (lets say something having to do with Faunus, the mines, Mantle, or the SDC) she exposes it but quickly becomes disillusioned with military life and is discharged. She then begins living in Mantle and becomes their representative. We can say this happened maybe five to ten years before the series itself starts. 

She served under Ironwood and has a deep respect for him, but does not agree with his decisions as defacto head of the Council. This is what leads to the friction between them. 

Next, we change up how she and the Huntresses are introduced in V7. When RWBYJNRQO arrive in Mantle the election race has only barely begun (we’re pushing it back). We see posters for Robyn and maybe hear snippets of an interview she is giving to a news station on one of the TVs. 

When the Grimm attack, instead of RWBYJNRQO running out to help immediately, they are cut off by the Happy Huntresses who quickly get rid of the monsters. Ruby and the others wonder who they are before the Huntresses scatter when Penny and the Ace-Ops arrive. The heroes are still arrested for stealing an airship and violating Atlas airspace (as they should have), but now there is some intrigue about who that group of women were. 

Forrest still gives his exposition, but leaves out Robyn because no one knows she’s their leader. 

When the gang arrive at the school they meet with Ironwood and Winter, but hear Ironwood complaining about “that woman” after having just finished a call on his scroll. 

Fast forward to the mine mission. Instead of Jacques showing up, this is where we gets their first full appearance from Robyn. She is brought via airship to the mine (along with an exasperated Winter and Penny) and begins to badger Ironwood about ducking their meeting, stating that Mantle still hasn’t received the supplies he promised days ago. You could also have her briefly greet the kids and Qrow before going back to argue with Ironwood. 

Things proceed as normal, but inbetween some of the bigger story events we see news reports of Robyn helping people around Mantle. Feeding the poor, cheering up the miners, handing out supplies, giving speeches, and other things to show that she really is the hero of the people. Not everything has to be directly tied to the plot, you can use extra devices like tv news and the like to expand on characters. They tried this in V7 but they didn’t go far enough with in my opinion. This would inform us more on Robyn’s character without her being the direct focus as well as give the audience an actual reason to get behind the things she says. 

The main aspect of Robyn’s character that I would focus on would be her relationship with Ironwood. Nothing romantic, just how their ideologies align (or don’t) and how they view each other. They respect one another. Robyn knows Ironwood is a good man, but she doesn’t fully understand why he’s doing the things that he is doing. She doesn’t know why he’s being so secretive. She wants to give him a chance, but he keeps denying her. 

On Ironwood’s part he knows that morally Robyn is in the right and genuinely wants to help everyone in both cities, but his paranoia will not allow him to simply tell her what is really going on. Salem’s reach is far and if she was able to turn Lionheart (one of Ozpin’s closest confidants) then she can get to anyone and that is frightening. 

This is why Robyn utilizes the Happy Huntresses. They are able to move outside the law and do the things she can’t (similar to Jim Gordon and Batman). She doesn’t want to condemn Ironwood because of all the good he’s done, but people are suffering and something needs to change.

Neither are wrong, but they can’t find common ground.  

I’d position Robyn more as a fringe type of character. She doesn’t directly intervene in the plot, but you know she’s always there bidding her time until she can be more prominent.

I have more ideas for her, but this post is long enough as it is so let’s just end it here. 

TLDR; Robyn Hill is a good character concept with horrible execution. Hopefully she will be somewhat better utilized in future volumes, or kill her off at the start of V8. At this point I’m good with either. 

[romansrace]

Season 13 Sassy Reviews - E1: The Pork Chop

Salutations! Here we are with a quick run of episode 1 - which we can all charitably say was a hot mess, right?

The queens gathered, split into pairs - and one three (would it be Drag Race without one ill-thought-out extra large or extra small team?) to lipsync for their lives in Episode 1 with... no eliminations, because the fandom loves a no-win no-elim premiere, amirite? ...

And of course with this format where they could go all out with gaggery, the producers of course chose... to protect their favorite queens at all costs and clearly signpost to the audience from the first minute exactly who they want us to care about and root for.

Is this the moment the show jumped the shark? Full lipsync review after the jump.

First lipsync is between obvious Vanjie/Shangie-esque life and soul of the party Kandy Muse who blasts into the werkroom with energy at 11, and self-described ‘filler queen’ Joey Jay who boasted in her Meet the Queens of never wearing a wig yet showed up looking like 2001 Christina Aguilera in her entrance look and a notably more subdued 2021 Pink in her confessional.

They lipsync to Carly Rae Jepsen’s Call Me Maybe. Joey gives us all the right showgirl tricks and follows the song hitting every beat and word, while Kandy plays up a schtick and comedy with a few dance moves thrown in for good measure. All in all, it was a pretty equal start in my view from two queens neither of whom are likely lipsync assassins. However, the producers had a different idea, and Kandy is given the first shantay while Joey sashays away.

The second lipsync features ice skater (did you know she skates? It was only hammered home about 8 times in the 3 minutes of screentime she got) Denali vs dancer and seeded-not-the-best-look-queen LaLa Ri, who is very high energy in the confessionals compared to Denali’s slightly more subdued and cautious remarks. Want to guess who wins without even watching it?

Yes, once again, despite Denali pulling an amazing performance out of the bag to the PussyCat Dolls’ When I Grow Up in full-on ice skates on a normal floor including  a Naomi-Smalls-esque full body back bend and a cartwheel, you’ve guessed it, the louder confessional queen wins the second lipsync too, and Denali is sent out back to the loser queens’ holding room.

The third lipsync is between young look queen Symone wearing a dress made of photographs of herself (choices) and cancer-surviving well-established queen mother Tamisha Iman. They’ll perform to Janet Jackson’s The Pleasure Principle. To reiterate, a young, confident, beautiful looks queen - who is friends with Gigi Goode, from the last season - versus an older queen who has been doing drag for 30 years and has tried to get on many years previously. Gosh, wonder who the producers will favor.

If you guessed Symone... you’d be right. Despite Tamisha giving us a near-perfect rendition of Janet-esque choreography with handography the house down boots in a Janet-esque colored suit with shoulderpads, the shantay goes to Symone for...I guess waving her hands in the air a bit and strutting. In truth, Symone did not do badly in the lipsync, but did she win it? Not in my book.

Our resident two kooky queens are up next; Gottmik who is inspired by clowns, and Utica Queen who is inspired by colors and patterns mixed up and blended together. Gottmik is also the franchise’s first trans man competitor.

The two queens give it all they’ve got to Rumors - by Lindsay Lohan. This one’s pretty even, but of course, there was no way they were going to let RuPaul eliminate a trans contestant on the first episode after her past controversies - although, given the number of contestants, a double shantay would be perfectly doable AND would probably build early rapport between the pair - so it’s instead a shantay for Gottmik only and a sashay for Utica.

Fifth lipsync with only one to go gives the floor to Rosé, the drag sister of Jan, from season 12, and Olivia Lux, a young queen who admires and has always looked up to Rosé. Does anyone smell a storyline here?

Rosé is asked by the judges before the lipsync - to Elle King’s Ex’s & Oh’s - starts if she expects to do better than Jan did. Ru has a nasty twinkle in her eye that suggests that no matter how Rosé answers, she’ll make sure it doesn’t come true. Once again, Olivia and Rosé perform quite evenly matched. Olivia arguably gets a bit more into the song, but equally, she breaks into some non-drag-esque air guitar moments that previously saw contestants like Yuhua Hamasaki eliminated. In any case, once again, the typical happens, and it’s bye bye to Rosé while Olivia is given the win.

And finally, we have a three-way lipsync, and the first time I was personally even a little gooped because this resulted in only one queen winning rather than only one sashaying away, meaning that as of the end of episode 1, Season 13 has eliminated over half of its cast. Choices. (Although as if they won’t be back in some way...)

The final three queens into the werkroom are the slightly wallflower-esque yet shady Kahmora Hall, confident-but-perhaps-deluded Elliott with Two T’s, and the big girl winner stereotype the show has clearly been trying to capture for four seasons now, hostess, actress, and comedy queen Tina Burner, a mainstay of the New York drag scene.

Lady Marmalade is the lipsync song this time. Kahmora is a little outclassed by the other two, Elliott especially, who pulls out a number of tricks, flips, and a full side split - even in not the best outfit for the showgirl classic in her half-tank and cargo pants. Tina Burner holds her own with a comedy lipsync playing on her height and age, but it’s quite obvious that she would have been given this win almost no matter how she did. And she does - shantay you stay Tina Burner, and you other two, get off my stage! - was the vibe.

And so we go into episode 2 with six of the 13 queens clearly marked out as The Winners. Do we need any clearer demarcation of who the producers’ favorites will be this season? Is that guaranteed the top 6 - or maybe, at least, most of the places within the top 7 or 8?

I’d love to be gagged by changes as the season goes along, but this premiere had an almost-but-not-quite self-aware vibe to it that left me feeling uneasy in a way I haven’t since season 11. The eliminated queens looked - perhaps unsurprisingly, given the stressful nature of 2020, when this was filmed - genuinely devastated to be put into the losers group on their first episode, only to be told that they can only save themselves by Survivor-esque voting off themselves one of their number - a trick that works better on All Stars because we know by then all the queens competing are wealthy and already well-established, and have just come back for the game, rather than to make or break their livelihood.

I’m very cautious as to how this season will go now, and, to be honest, it’s not quite a death knell, but this did feel like the first steps into a new - and not necessarily better - era for the franchise.

But on the plus side, after this episode, I have a new and unexpected fan favorite queen - Justice for Tamisha Iman!

[phroyd]

Oh My, what terrible timing, and what a great loss! Rest In Peace Justice Ginsburg, thank you for all you have done for our country! - Phroyd

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the demure firebrand who in her 80s became a legal, cultural and feminist icon, died Friday. The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas.

The court, in a statement, said Ginsburg died at her home in Washington surrounded by family. She was 87.

"Our nation has lost a justice of historic stature," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her, a tired and resolute champion of justice."

Architect of the legal fight for women's rights in the 1970s, Ginsburg subsequently served 27 years on the nation's highest court, becoming its most prominent member. Her death will inevitably set in motion what promises to be a nasty and tumultuous political battle over who will succeed her, and it thrusts the Supreme Court vacancy into the spotlight of the presidential campaign.

By subscribing, you agree to NPR's terms of use and privacy policy. NPR may share your name and email address with your NPR station. See Details. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

She knew what was to come. Ginsburg's death will have profound consequences for the court and the country. Inside the court, not only is the leader of the liberal wing gone, but with the Court about to open a new term, Chief Justice John Roberts no longer holds the controlling vote in closely contested cases.

Though he has a consistently conservative record in most cases, he has split from fellow conservatives in a few important ones, this year casting his vote with liberals, for instance, to at least temporarily protect the so-called Dreamers from deportation by the Trump administration, to uphold a major abortion precedent, and to uphold bans on large church gatherings during the coronavirus pandemic. But with Ginsburg gone, there is no clear court majority for those outcomes.

Indeed, a week after the upcoming presidential election, the court is for the third time scheduled to hear a challenge brought by Republicans to the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. In 2012 the high court upheld the law by a 5-to-4 vote, with Chief Justice Roberts casting the deciding vote and writing the opinion for the majority. But this time the outcome may well be different.

That's because Ginsburg's death gives Republicans the chance to tighten their grip on the court with another Trump appointment that would give conservatives a 6-to-3 majority. And that would mean that even a defection on the right would leave conservatives with enough votes to prevail in the Obamacare case and many others.

At the center of the battle to achieve that will be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In 2016 he took a step unprecedented in modern times: He refused for nearly a year to allow any consideration of President Obama's supreme court nominee.

Back then, McConnell's justification was the upcoming presidential election, which he said would allow voters a chance to weigh in on what kind of justice they wanted. But now, with the tables turned, McConnell has made clear he will not follow the same course. Instead he will try immediately push through a Trump nominee so as to ensure a conservative justice to fill Ginsburg's liberal shoes, even if President Trump were to lose his re-election bid. Asked what he would do in circumstances like these, McConnell said: "Oh, we'd fill it."

So what happens in the coming weeks will be bare-knuckle politics, writ large, on the stage of a presidential election. It will be a fight Ginsburg had hoped to avoid, telling Justice Stevens shortly before his death that she hoped to serve as long as he did--until age 90.

"My dream is that I will stay on the court as long as he did," she said in an interview in 2019.

She didn't quite make it. But Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nonetheless an historic figure. She changed the way the world is for American women. For more than a decade, until her first judicial appointment in 1980, she led the fight in the courts for gender equality. When she began her legal crusade, women were treated, by law, differently from men. Hundreds of state and federal laws restricted what women could do, barring them from jobs, rights and even from jury service. By the time she donned judicial robes, however, Ginsburg had worked a revolution.

That was never more evident than in 1996 when, as a relatively new Supreme Court justice, Ginsburg wrote the court's 7-to-1 opinion declaring that the Virginia Military Institute could no longer remain an all-male institution. True, said Ginsburg, most women — indeed most men — would not want to meet the rigorous demands of VMI. But the state, she said, could not exclude women who could meet those demands.

"Reliance on overbroad generalizations ... estimates about the way most men or most women are, will not suffice to deny opportunity to women whose talent and capacity place them outside the average description," Ginsburg wrote.

She was an unlikely pioneer, a diminutive and shy woman, whose soft voice and large glasses hid an intellect and attitude that, as one colleague put it, was "tough as nails."

By the time she was in her 80s, she had become something of a rock star to women of all ages. She was the subject of a hit documentary, a biopic, an operetta, merchandise galore featuring her "Notorious RBG" moniker, a Time magazine cover, and regular Saturday Night Live sketches.

On one occasion in 2016, Ginsburg got herself into trouble and later publicly apologized for disparaging remarks she made about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump.

But for the most part Ginsburg enjoyed her fame and maintained a sense of humor about herself.

Asked about the fact that she had apparently fallen asleep during the 2015 State of the Union address, Ginsburg did not take the Fifth, admitting that although she had vowed not to drink at dinner with the other justices before the speech, the wine had just been too good to resist. The result, she said, was that she was perhaps not an entirely "sober judge" and kept nodding off.

Born in Brooklyn, N.Y., Ruth Bader went to public schools, where she excelled as a student — and as a baton twirler. By all accounts, it was her mother who was the driving force in her young life, but Celia Bader died of cancer the day before the future Justice would graduate from high school.

Then 17, Ruth Bader went on to Cornell on full scholarship, where she met Martin (aka "Marty") Ginsburg. "What made Marty so overwhelmingly attractive to me was that he cared that I had a brain," she said.

After her graduation, they were married and went off to Fort Sill, Okla., for his military service. There Mrs. Ginsburg, despite scoring high on the civil service exam, could only get a job as a typist, and when she became pregnant, she lost even that job.

Two years later, the couple returned to the East Coast to attend Harvard Law School. She was one of only nine women in a class of over 500 and found the dean asking her why she was taking up a place that "should go to a man."

At Harvard, she was the academic star, not Marty. The couple was busy juggling schedules, and their toddler when Marty was diagnosed with testicular cancer. Surgeries and aggressive radiation followed.

"So that left Ruth with a 3-year-old child, a fairly sick husband, the law review, classes to attend and feeding me," said Marty Ginsburg in a 1993 interview with NPR.

The experience also taught the future justice that sleep was a luxury. During the year of Marty's illness, he was only able to eat late at night; after that he would dictate his senior class paper to Ruth. At about 2 a.m., he would go back to sleep, Ginsburg recalled in an NPR interview. "Then I'd take out the books and start reading what I needed to be prepared for classes the next day."

Marty Ginsburg survived, graduated, and got a job in New York; his wife, a year behind him in school, transferred to Columbia, where she graduated at the top of her law school class. Despite her academic achievements, the doors to law firms were closed to women, and though recommended for a Supreme Court clerkship, she wasn't even interviewed.

It was bad enough that she was a woman, she recalled later, but she was also a mother, and male judges worried that she would be diverted by her "familial obligations."

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is pictured in the justice's chambers in Washington, D.C., during an interview with NPR's Nina Totenberg in September 2016.

A mentor, law professor Gerald Gunther, finally got her a clerkship in New York by promising Judge Edmund Palmieri that if she couldn't do the work, he would provide someone who could. That was "the carrot," Ginsburg would say later. "The stick" was that Gunther, who regularly fed his best students to Palmieri, told the judge that if he didn't take Ginsburg, Gunther would never send him a clerk again. The Ginsburg clerkship apparently was a success; Palmieri kept her not for the usual one year, but two, from 1959-61.

Ginsburg's next path is rarely talked about, mainly because it doesn't fit the narrative. She learned Swedish so she could work with Anders Berzelius, a Swedish civil procedure scholar. Through the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure, Ginsburg and Berzelius co-authored a book.

In 1963, Ginsburg finally landed a teaching job at Rutgers law school, where she at one point hid her second pregnancy by wearing her mother-in-law's clothes. The ruse worked; her contract was renewed before her new baby was born.

While at Rutgers, she began her work fighting gender discrimination.

The 'Mother Brief'

Her first big case was a challenge to a law that barred a Colorado man named Charles Moritz from taking a tax deduction for the care of his 89-year-old mother. The IRS said the deduction, by statute, could only be claimed by women, or widowed or divorced men. But Moritz had never married.

The tax court concluded that the internal revenue code was immune to constitutional challenge, a notion that tax lawyer Marty Ginsburg viewed as "preposterous." The two Ginsburgs took on the case, he from the tax perspective, she from the constitutional perspective.

According to Marty Ginsburg, for his wife, this was the "mother brief." She had to think through all the issues and how to fix the inequity. The solution was to ask the court not to invalidate the statute but to apply it equally to both sexes. She won in the lower courts.

"Amazingly," he recalled in a 1993 NPR interview, the government petitioned the United States Supreme Court, stating that the decision "cast a cloud of unconstitutionality" over literally hundreds of federal statutes, and it attached a list of those statutes, which it compiled with Defense Department computers.

Those laws, Marty Ginsburg added, "were the statutes that my wife then litigated ... to overturn over the next decade."

In 1971, she would write her first Supreme Court brief in the case of Reed v. Reed. Ginsburg represented Sally Reed, who thought she should be the executor of her son's estate instead of her ex-husband.

The constitutional issue was whether a state could automatically prefer men over women as executors of estates. The answer from the all-male supreme court: no.

It was the first time the court had ever struck down a state law because it discriminated based on gender.

And that was just the beginning.

By then Ginsburg was earning quite a reputation. She would become the first female tenured professor at Columbia Law School, and she would found the Women's Rights Project at the ACLU.

As the chief architect of the battle for women's legal rights, Ginsburg devised a strategy that was characteristically cautious, precise and single-mindedly aimed at one goal: winning.

Knowing that she had to persuade male, establishment-oriented judges, she often picked male plaintiffs, and she liked Social Security cases because they illustrated how discrimination against women can harm men. For example, in Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, she represented a man whose wife, the principal breadwinner, died in childbirth. The husband sought survivor's benefits to care for his child, but under the then-existing Social Security law, only widows, not widowers, were entitled to such benefits.

"This absolute exclusion, based on gender per se, operates to the disadvantage of female workers, their surviving spouses, and their children," Ginsburg told the justices at oral argument. The Supreme Court would ultimately agree, as it did in five of the six cases she argued.

Over the ensuing years, Ginsburg would file dozens of briefs seeking to persuade the courts that the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection applies not just to racial and ethnic minorities, but to women as well.

In an interview with NPR, she explained the legal theory that she eventually sold to the Supreme Court.

"The words of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause — 'nor shall any state deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.' Well that word, 'any person,' covers women as well as men. And the Supreme Court woke up to that reality in 1971," Ginsburg said.

During these pioneering years, Ginsburg would often work through the night as she had during law school. But by this time, she had two children, and she later liked to tell a story about the lesson she learned when her son, in grade school, seemed to have a proclivity for getting into trouble.

The scrapes were hardly major, and Ginsburg grew exasperated by demands from school administrators that she come in to discuss her son's alleged misbehavior. Finally, there came a day when she had had enough. "I had stayed up all night the night before, and I said to the principal, 'This child has two parents. Please alternate calls.'"

After that, she found, the calls were few and far between. It seemed, she said, that most infractions were not worth calling a busy husband about.

The Supreme Court's Second Woman

In 1980 then-President Jimmy Carter named Ginsburg to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Over the next 13 years, she would amass a record as something of a centrist liberal, and in 1993 then-President Bill Clinton nominated her to the Supreme Court, the second woman appointed to the position.

She was not first on his list. For months Clinton flirted with other potential nominees, and some women's rights activists withheld their active support because they were worried about Ginsburg's views on abortion. She had been publicly critical of the legal reasoning in Roe v. Wade.

But in the background, Marty Ginsburg was lobbying hard for his wife. And finally Ruth Ginsburg was invited for a meeting with the president. As one White House official put it afterward, Clinton "fell for her--hook, line and sinker." So did the Senate. She was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3.

Once on the court, Ginsburg was an example of a woman who defied stereotypes. Though she looked tiny and frail, she rode horses well into her 70s and even went parasailing. At home, it was her husband who was the chef, indeed a master chef, while the justice cheerfully acknowledged that she was an awful cook.

Though a liberal, she and the court's conservative icon, Antonin Scalia, now deceased, were the closest of friends. Indeed, an opera called Scalia/Ginsburg is based on their legal disagreements, and their affection for each other.

Over the years, as Ginsburg's place on the court grew in seniority, so did her role. In 2006, as the court veered right after the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Ginsburg dissented more often and more assertively, her most passionate dissents coming in women's rights cases.

Dissenting in Ledbetter v. Goodyear in 2007, she called on Congress to pass legislation that would override a court decision that drastically limited back-pay available for victims of employment discrimination. The resulting legislation was the first bill passed in 2009 after President Barack Obama took office.

In 2014, she dissented fiercely from the court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, a decision that allowed some for-profit companies to refuse, on religious grounds, to comply with a federal mandate to cover birth control in health care plans. Such an exemption, she said, would "deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs, access to contraceptive coverage."

Where, she asked, "is the stopping point?" Suppose it offends an employer's religious belief "to pay the minimum wage" or "to accord women equal pay?"

And in 2013, when the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, contending that times had changed and the law was no longer needed, Ginsburg dissented. She said that throwing out the provision "when it has worked and is continuing to work ... is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."

She viewed her dissents as a chance to persuade a future court.

"Some of my favorite opinions are dissenting opinions," Ginsburg told NPR. "I will not live to see what becomes of them, but I remain hopeful."

And yet, Ginsburg still managed some unexpected victories by winning over one or two of the conservative justices in important cases. In 2015, for example, she authored the court's decision upholding independent redistricting commissions established by voter referenda as a way of removing some of the partisanship in drawing legislative district lines.

Ginsburg always kept a backbreaking schedule of public appearances both at home and abroad, even after five bouts with cancer: colon cancer in 1999, pancreatic cancer 10 years later, lung cancer in 2018, and then pancreatic cancer again in 2019 and liver lesions in 2020. During that time, she endured chemotherapy, radiation, and in the last years of her life, terrible pain from shingles that never went away completely. All who knew her admired her grit. In 2009, three weeks after major cancer surgery, she surprised everyone when she showed up for the State of the Union address.

Shortly after that, she was back on the bench; it was her husband Marty who told her she could do it, even when she thought she could not, she told NPR.

A year later her psychological toughness was on full display when her beloved husband of 56 years was mortally ill. As she packed up his things at the hospital before taking him home to die, she found a note he had written to her. "My Dearest Ruth," it began, "You are the only person I have ever loved," setting aside children and family. "I have admired and loved you almost since the day we first met at Cornell....The time has come for me to ... take leave of life because the loss of quality simply overwhelms. I hope you will support where I come out, but I understand you may not. I will not love you a jot less."

Shortly after that, Marty Ginsburg died at home. The next day, his wife, the justice, was on the bench, reading an important opinion she had authored for the court. She was there, she said, because "Marty would have wanted it."

Years later, she would read the letter aloud in an NPR interview, and at the end, choke down the tears.

In the years after Marty's death, she would persevere without him, maintaining a jam-packed schedule when she was not on the bench or working on opinions.

Some liberals criticized her for not retiring while Obama was president, but she was at the top of her game, enjoyed her work enormously, and feared that Republicans might not confirm a successor. She was an avid consumer of opera, literature, and modern art. But in the end, it was her work, she said, that sustained her.

"I do think that I was born under a very bright star," she said in an NPR interview. "Because if you think about my life, I get out of law school. I have top grades. No law firm in the city of New York will hire me. I end up teaching; it gave me time to devote to the movement for evening out the rights of women and men. "

And it was that legal crusade for women's rights that ultimately led to her appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court.

To the end of her tenure, she remained a special kind of feminist, both decorous and dogged.

Phroyd

[litheammunition]

The same old misconceptions about climate change are never far away. That fire in the Gulf of Mexico saw the same memes coming out. ‘Oh, I guess I forgot to turn off the AC’, or ‘it’s a good thing we got rid of all those plastic straws’. People love the deny that individuals can have any impact, or that we should feel the need to change our behaviours in any way, because all the blame can be safely parked at the doors of Big Companies instead.

The suggestion is that we shouldn’t have bothered cutting down on single use plastics, or shouldn’t worry about wasting electricity, because our actions are a drop in the ocean, whereas the Big Companies are literally out there setting fire to the ocean for profit.

But why is the ocean on fire? Well, it was an issue with a gas pipeline. Why are they piping gas across the world? Well, other Companies use it. Sure, but what do they use it to make? Uh... well, they use it in the production of plastic and the generation of electricity. Why do they do that? Because it makes them money. How does that make them money? Because, uh, there’s a demand for it. From people like you and me.

The Big Companies are not out here extracting or transporting or burning fossil fuels for fun. They do it because it is immensely profitable for them. Why? Well, setting fire to oil doesn’t transform it into dollars. They aren’t paid by the devil. They’re paid by people who use fossil fuels to meet their energy or plastic needs. Most of those are other Companies, but their demand is fuelled by other Companies, and if you follow that chain to the end you end up with consumers.

If you cut down on unnecessary plastic, you might save a few drops of oil at the end of the chain. But on the way you also cut into the profit of the company using it, and the company they bought it from, and the company that made it. If thousands of us did that, and moved our business to companies using sustainable packaging or paper straws or whatever, the companies would notice. The ones being sustainable would thrive, and others would switch to copy them. The ones using plastic would suffer, and be pressured to change their ways or lose their market share.

Yes, they are Companies. But that doesn’t mean our actions don’t make a difference. Sure, one individual doesn’t. If you vote for the Greens as a third party, that’s not going to stop the Republican or Democrat winning the presidency. But if enough of the population thought the same as you, it would. How many people only don’t vote Green because they know they won’t win? What would happen if they all stuck to their convictions? They might still not win, but they would show others that there is a serious chance of them winning in the future, and embolden even more to vote for them. They would also push the Overton Window and pressure other parties to pick up their policies, just as we have seen from right wing parties in the wrong direction.

If you sit around thinking your voice has no power, it won’t. If everyone thinks that, it won’t. If everyone believes it does have power, it will.

Do you know who those 100 companies are? Mostly gas, oil, coal etc. companies. You can track most greenhouse emissions back to them because they are the ones extracting and burning the fossil fuels. But they aren’t just doing that because they feel like it! They do that because the rest of our society is built on a demand for energy and plastic and other products of those fuels. They are just one end of a long chain. You could also look at the other end of the chain, and say that consumers are responsible for 100% of emissions. That tells you equally little.

It’s also worth pointing out that China is responsible for about 29% of emissions on its own, so simplifying climate change as something to be blamed on capitalism is also incorrect. People have a demand for energy, plastic, fuel. A state-run economy will satisfy that demand in the cheapest way in order to maintain economic growth and compete with other nations. It will act in the self-interested way a Big Company will. But under democracy we have a voice to say we have other interests, and under capitalism we have a voice to say the same. Your wallet is your vote.

Take another chain as an example. Let’s say we need to cut down on beef consumption, what with the land and water usage, and then somebody says okay let’s all cut down in our diets. You then say wait, why should I stop eating my beef three meals a day? I’ve had a look at the figures, and actually all of the beef consumption is by Big Companies! What we need is to wait for the end of capitalism, and only then will these companies stop producing loads of beef for no reason at all. Do you want another mince sandwich?

The most effective way to discourage the Big Companies from clearing more rainforest to increase beef production would be to reduce beef consumption. If we all cut beef from our diet, they would stop expanding, and companies would invest in beef alternatives to compensate, and supermarkets and restaurants in the middle would do the same when they noticed people were no longer buying beef much, and the links would all reinforce each other to help the consumption drop. That’s patently obvious.

But when climate change experts tell us the most effective thing we can do to combat climate change is to cut down on our beef consumption, or try to take public transport or ride share or not drive unless necessary, or to cut down on wasteful single use plastics, why not do them? If we all did, it would impact the shops and the restaurants and the car manufacturers and pressure them into becoming more green to adapt, which is what’s happening with paper straws and artificial meat and electric cars, which is helping. We need more of that pressure, not less, not for everyone to give up and binge on fossil fuel hedonism whilst smugly saying the blame is with the Companies they buy from instead.

It’s basically a chicken-egg situation. Yes, it’s one end of the chain, but it’s also the other. We only use X because they make it, they only make X because they use it. It’s a cycle which will go on forever until one side breaks it. They’re not going to blink first. The Big Companies are not going to willingly sacrifice profits unless consumer behaviour changes, and you know what? Even if they did, that would just create an opportunity for other companies to take their place. 

Countries, communist or socialist or not, are similarly not going to sacrifice their short term economic progress for the same reason, unless voter/popular demand changes. If people want cheap fuel, a ruling party is not going to take it away unless they are extremely secure as well as enlightened enough to want that for other reasons, which is not a common mix. The change has to come from our side: voters and consumers. If we sit waiting for them to change instead, nothing is ever going to happen. We have to make the first step. We have to believe that our step will make a difference, and encourage others to make it with us, and hold firm. It’s nothing guaranteed, but it’s the best chance we have.

[koreanfilmjottings]

house of hummingbird (2018)

house of hummingbird is a coming-of-age tale of how an ordinary 14 year-old girl finds herself amidst the relationships she develops with the people around her. in doing so, the film draws on themes big and small, which effectively paints a scarred national psyche and depicts the struggles of normal people as they try to keep apace.

the film can be described as a quiet feminist criticism of gender inequality in a “modern” society. eun-hee and her good friend, ji-soo, are victims of domestic abuse by their older brothers, who have been conditioned by patriarchal notions that empower them to assault their sisters as a means of “reprimanding” them and keeping them in order. when eun-hee and ji-soo are caught for shop theft, ji-soo trembles at the fear of being hit by her brother back at home. when eun-hee bravely tells her parents over dinner, in the first third of the film, that her brother had hit her, her older sister gives her a glance. initially i thought the glance was a glance of surprise and reproach, as if to tell eun-hee to remain silent. but i later realise the glance meant that she herself was a victim of her brother’s abuse, and the glance was a pleasant surprise at her courage. the uncomfortable coexistence of domestic assault and women’s education empowerment (the daughters are enrolled for after-school tuition), points to how society’s claims of modernisation will always ring hollow if women cannot even have basic human rights.

the exhortations of gender inequality are constantly woven in the film. eun-hee’s mother knows that her father is having an extramarital affair, but never explicitly addresses it. nonchalantly asking eun-hee “what was your father wearing when he went out today?” and then checking his closet to see whether he wore his best suit out on a date, eun-hee’s mother is the film’s closest representation of the virtuous traditional asian wife. eun-hee almost walks in her mother’s footsteps - even after seeing her boyfriend flirt with her schoolmate, she takes him back immediately with little questioning. it is only with young-ji’s advice that she needs to not live her life passively that eun-hee starts to assert herself and retaliate. when eun-hee is caught for shoplifting, her father tells him he would rather the shopkeeper send eun-hee to the police station than send some rice cakes over as a “favour”. this is in contrast with her father’s treatment of her brother, offering him money to buy burgers to bribe his schoolmates to vote him as school president.

eun-hee’s relationship with yoo-ri, her junior at school, is less significant as an exploration of sexuality but rather an example of how eun-hee is desperately trying to find true companionship in the people around her. contrasting her friendship with ji-soo (they had a falling out but later reconciled) and her relationship with yoo-ri (yoo-ri fell out of affection and ended the relationship coldly), eun-hee learns that lasting relationships need to be built and are hard to come by. this is why her relationship with young-ji, a teacher at her chinese hakwon (after-school tuition), is extra special. 

it is easy to see why teacher young-ji is a figure of admiration for the impressionable eun-hee. young-ji lives a quasi-ascetic and independent lifestyle - she dresses in baggy linen, brews oolong tea in a set of china, and in their first meeting teaches eunhee “out of all the people you’ve met in your life, how many of them really know you?” in hanja. she quits her job at the hakwon out of the blue, because she felt like it; she is on a long break from her undergraduate studies at Seoul University, because she felt like it. of course, this independence is afforded by young-ji’s privilege (her family is well-off). but her non-traditional behaviour teaches eun-hee that there are ways to live without conforming to society. she never talks to eun-hee with condescension, but treats her as a mature equal and genuinely cares for her in ways that eun-hee has never received.

in terms of style, i very much appreciated the sensitive directing of kim bora, which drew the viewer very close to the protagonist. there were very clever tricks deployed. there is a moment when eun-hee is caught shoplifting and the shopkeeper asks for her father’s number, to which she whispers “555-2589″. when eun-hee frightfully presses this number into the public phone after she sees the bridge collapse, kim borrows this memory, as the viewer knows who she is calling before she even says a word.

but the best moments were always personal. as a 24 year-old asian female, even the slightest scenes were poignant. when eun-hee ended off her never-delivered letter to young-ji with “when will my life start to shine?” i just started crying, because i wanted to tell eun-hee that her beloved teacher probably doesn’t know. i don’t know too. when the film ended with eun-hee having found an internal peace, through young-ji’s words of advice, that would help her navigate life’s tribulations - big or small - i started to cry again. we have all struggled to find ourselves, amongst the many expectations placed on us in the different roles we play in society. even though not all of us have a figure like young-ji when they were growing up, the answer to finding life tolerable is always the same.

i love this film - i really, really do. i am eun-hee when i was 12, i am young-ji now. i love this film with a camaraderie that is shared between all asian women who have struggled and are struggling to find their places in society. --10/10

[ask-de-writer]

SEA DRAGON’S GIFT : Part 39 of 83 : World of Sea

Return to the Master Story Index

Return to World of Sea

SEA DRAGON’S GIFT

Part 39 of 83

by

De Writer (Glen Ten-Eyck)

140406 words

copyright 2020

written 2007

All rights reserved.

Reproduction in any form, physical, electronic or digital is prohibited without the express consent of the author.

//////////////

Copyright fair use rules for Tumblr users

Users   of Tumblr.com are specifically granted the following rights.  They may   reblog the story provided that all author and copyright information   remains intact.  They may use the characters or original characters in   my settings for fan fiction, fan art works, cosplay, or fan musical   compositions.

All sorts of fan art, cosplay, music or fiction is actively encouraged.

///////////////////////

New to the story?  Read from the beginning.  PART 1 is here

///////////////////////

The next morning at breakfast, Captain Barad sent runners to awaken everybody for a General Assembly in the mess.  Some were still rubbing sleep from their eyes when Barad stood.

He was dressed as carefully as Tanlin had been able to arrange.  He paused dramatically and to collect his thoughts.  Barad was not used to explaining himself.

“All of you are wondering what could make us leave the Gathering in utter darkness and run without drums or lights as we have been doing.  If you look, you will see two empty places, one at the officer’s table and one down among the rest of you.

“We had a mutiny. Nobody tried to seize the ship.  We would have been far better off if they had.  The whole ship stands to be charged with the murder by intent of a person just declared a Naral fleet Resource.  Kurin Behar Longin was poisoned by some of our own, in direct violation of Standing Orders.

“Worse for us, she was not taken to the Longin.  She collapsed into the arms of Captain Sula and was taken to the sickbay of the Dark Dragon.

“Kurin was poisoned by Ord in her food.  The people of the Dark Dragon are experienced with Ord poisoning in all of its forms.  Ord was used as a weapon in the Boren Current Wars.  They surely know why and how Kurin died.

“We will all be hunted.  There is only one thing in our favor.  Sarfin the Wise is the head of the Captain’s Council.  He will see to it that each of you gets a fair trial, if we are caught.  Most of you should get off. I have Logged a true account of the poisoning in the hope that it will help you.

“I will go down under any legal outcome.  What my crew does as a crew, I am accountable for and nobody in the Naral fleet will believe that I had no hand in this.  All that I can do is try to get the killers punished and the rest of you free.

“I have arranged this much.  We will soon meet with the Fauline in her Spring waters and they will tell us the situation.  We can only trust them to a limited extent.  They owe us a hull-secured loan large enough to bankrupt them and force the Scattering of her crew.  

“If we are caught, this loan will revert to the fleet or become part of the prize for our capture.  Either way, they will have to pay it off, and they can’t.  Their freedom is only secure if we forgive the loan.  For that, they will give us the news that we need to choose a course of action.

“Any who wish to, except officers and the mutineers may take any of our boats, the supplies you need, and go.  If you do, Mecat, wisest and most dangerous of Dragons, guide you to safety.  I myself would flee but I must do my best to get the rest of you to safety first, regardless of cost.

“Do you all understand?”

A hand went up, “Thoris, Sir, Third Day Watch deck-hand.  The Lady Tanlin met us all as we came back from the Gathering and told us that we were in serious trouble.  Those who wished to go left then.  They were to stay in our booth until this morning.  We understand the situation and we are here for you, Sir.”

Another hand arose. “Question of clarification, Sir?”

“Darkistry, are you not?  Ask.  I want everyone here to realize the situation that we are in.”

“It’s about the Lady Tanlin, Sir.  What will she do?”

“I don’t know.  I have not yet asked her.  Tanlin?”

She stood up before the crew and turned to face him.  “Barad, m�� Ca’tain, t’ere’s only ane t’ing t’at Oi can do.”  She knelt to one knee and held out her hands, Arrakan style, side by side.  Surprised, he held out his hands the same way and clasped hers.

“Oi, Tanlin Miken Princamorn, now o’ t’e Grandalor alone …”  Oi ‘ave t’ be crazy but Oi won’t let ‘im be alone.  With little surprise Tanlin realized what she had known all along but not been fully aware of, Oi do luve ‘im.

When she was done, she stood proudly, facing the crew and held up a book.

“For t’ose o’ ye t’at cannae see t’e title, ‘t says Grandalor Adoption Registry.  Last night somet’ing wa’ given t’ m’. Ye were willin’ t’ stick yer ‘and int’ t’e Strong Skin’s jaws.  Ye ‘ave ‘eard t’e Ca’tain.  Now ye know t’at tis nae a Strong Skin, tis a Wing Ray an’ tis  ready t’ bite ye in twa. Do ye stand by t’e gift or take ‘t bock?

“Neither shame nor dis’onor’ll be yers i’ ye do take i’ bock.  Ye can leave wit’ any ot’ers ‘oo wish t’ go.  We want only t’ose ‘ere o’ t’eir ane free will.  I’ ye stay, ye may end wit’ an ‘onor guard o’ Iren’s Orcas t’ see ye t’ ’is deep halls.

“Oi plan t’ sign t’is book but ye were t’e forst an’ should sign forst i’ ye still want t’ do so.”

Darkistry stood and walked decisively to the officers table.  “Last night, we knew that murder had been done and the details, as bad as they are, have not changed our minds.  The Night Watches to me!”  She raised her hand and nearly a third of the ship’s company formed behind her.

“Captain Brad, Sir. There are two things needful to us.  You and the Lady.  As long as you lead us, we will support you.  Many of us were caught in some net of the law, and you had the faith to cut us a hole to escape.  We are yours.  If we can cut you a hole to escape as well, we will.  If we cannot, we will fight beside you all the way to Iren’s halls if we must.  We will not break faith with you who had faith in us.

“We voted this morning again after our watches were done and the result was the same.  All of you who will stand by the oath I give, raise your hands.”

The hands of the Night Watches shot up without hesitation.  Master Selked and First Officer Timms had their hands up with them.  Among the seated watchers of the Day Watches and shops, looks were exchanged hesitantly.

A small boy raised a hand before his mother could stop him.  He was hugging a paddle duck of canvas scraps and soft stuffing.  “Captain Barad, I have a question.  Do you mean that something bad happened to Kurin?”

Everybody watched as the Captain and his Lady came down from the officers table and crouched before the boy.  Gently he said, “I am afraid so.”

“She can’t make us any more toys?”  The boy began to cry.

“Arnat,” his mother, Lenai, a sail-lofter began, reaching to shush her child.  

Instead, Tanlin reached out and took him and held him close as the Captain said softly, “I don’t think that she will ever make toys for anyone but the children who’ve already been taken to Iren’s home beneath the sea — — I’m sorry.”

Between sniffles, the boy said, “I’ll go with you and Tanlin, Captain.”

“Thank you, Arnat. We need all the help we can get, to save you and all the rest.  It will be dangerous work,” Barad said seriously.  As he returned to the Officer’s table, Tanlin extricated herself from Arnat and joined Barad, saying to the crew, “Oi’m sorry for t’e interruption.  T’e kinder need t’ understand as muckle as t’ey can, t’.”

The hesitation was gone.  Almost everyone raised their hands.  Both the Captain and Tanlin were surprised at the response.  As Darkistry knelt, there was a rattling and scraping of benches as the crew got to their feet and then knelt as she did.

Loudly enough to be heard by all, Darkistry intoned, “Last night the Night watches swore this oath through me in the presence of the Lady Tanlin.  Now we swear it to the Captain and his Lady both, before you all as witnesses, and it will be binding on all who kneel with us.” Though not every hand had gone up, none were standing now.

She looked about and taking a deep breath began, “I, Darkistry Colm Grinna …” There was a babble as each person stated his or her name, then finished the oath,  little Arnat’s voice among them.

The Captain took Darkistry’s hands into the Arrakan grip, so that neither had a hand above the other.  “For my Lady, Tanlin, and myself, Captain Barad, I take your oath, your lives to be as safe in our hands as the Dragons allow.  You are adopted to this ship, not only signed on as crew, but given and freely taking its name.

“These hands are equal, I not higher, nor you lower.  Together, we are one ship. Stand with me.”  All those who had knelt stood, overwhelmed by what they had done.

The mess was filled with a babble of people discussing their newfound feelings of pride of ship and loyalty as they awaited their chance to sign the adoption registry.  Most were agreed that as recently as last Gathering, they would have stood by Barad, but never before to this extent.  Tanlin had provided a turning point not only for the Captain but the crew as well.

The Grandalor continued to follow the whims of the Three Dragons dice for the whole of that day and the next.  At last, with no sighting of an enemy, the Grandalor shaped her course for the Fauline’s Spring home water.

TO BE CONTINUED

<==PREVIOUS   NEXT==>

Return to the Master Story Index

Return to World of Sea

[newstfionline]

Tuesday, December 15, 2020

Electoral College makes it official: Biden won (AP) The Electoral College formally chose Joe Biden on Monday as the nation’s next president, giving him a solid electoral majority of 306 votes and confirming his victory in last month’s election. The state-by-state voting took on added importance this year because of President Donald Trump’s refusal to concede he had lost. Heightened security was in place in some states as electors met on the day established by federal law. Electors cast paper ballots in gatherings with masks, social distancing and other virus precautions the order of the day. The results will be sent to Washington and tallied in a Jan. 6 joint session of Congress over which Vice President Mike Pence will preside. For all Trump’s unsupported claims of fraud, there was little suspense and no change as all the electoral votes allocated to Biden and the president in last month’s popular vote went officially to each man. Biden renewed his campaign promise to be a president for all Americans, whether they voted for him or not, and said the country has hard work ahead on the virus and economy.

The Electoral College, an unlovable compromise (AP) For a compromise that has lasted more than 200 years, the Electoral College doesn’t get a lot of love. According to the National Archives, more Constitutional amendments have been proposed to alter or abolish the Electoral College than on any other subject—more than 700 proposals in the nation’s history. It was James Madison who drew up the system, a compromise between those who wanted the states to select the president and those who wanted direct election by qualified voters. Each state was to select a number of electors equal to its representation in Congress (senators and representatives). Under the Constitution, the president must be elected with a majority of electors. If no one wins a majority, the House of Representatives decides. The national popular vote plays no part; five men have been elected president though their opponent won more votes, most recently Donald Trump in 2016. The electors meet and vote in their states on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

Hospitals Prepare for First Shots as Virus Vaccine Shipments Blanket U.S. (NYT) Trucks and cargo planes packed with the first of nearly three million doses of coronavirus vaccine fanned out across the country on Sunday as hospitals rushed to set up injection sites and their anxious workers tracked each shipment hour by hour. The distribution of the first federally approved vaccine marked the start of the most ambitious vaccination campaign in American history, a critical, complicated feat that one top federal official compared to the Allied landings at Normandy during World War II. Now, the United States is trying to turn the tide of battle against a virus whose spread has killed nearly 300,000 people, ravaged the economy and upended millions of lives. The first doses will go to health care workers, who could start receiving shots by Monday. Residents of nursing homes, who have suffered a disproportionate share of Covid-19 deaths, are also being prioritized and are expected to begin getting vaccinations next week.

Lessons (Pew Research Center) A large majority of U.S. adults (86%) say there is some kind of lesson or set of lessons for mankind to learn from the coronavirus outbreak, and about a third (35%) say these lessons were sent by God. In open-ended survey responses collected by the Center in the summer, Americans pointed to practical lessons, such as wearing a mask; personal lessons, such as remembering the importance of spending time with family and loved ones; and societal lessons, such as the need for universal health care. Other responses were political in nature, including criticisms of both major parties and concerns about the politicization of the pandemic. Among those who say there is a lesson about religion within the pandemic, some respondents point to the role God has in humans’ lives. For instance, a 53-year-old woman writes that “whether you believe it or not, God is in control and we must have God at the center of our lives. He is our savior.” Many respondents mention lessons about changes people should make in their personal lives and relationships with others. One 46-year-old woman says people need to “think about what is REALLY important and how your time is REALLY spent … hopefully this is an opportunity for people to rethink their priorities.” Similarly, a man in his 40s writes, “Life moves too quickly and people don’t slow down long enough to see their lives pass by. The virus has shown us that life doesn’t need to fly by so quickly. We can enjoy the moment more.” Many respondents also frame the coronavirus as a simple reminder to treat others well. A 54-year-old woman says that “we should always be kind to one another regardless of race, religion, or political belief. The virus does not discriminate, and neither should we.”

Russian Hackers Broke Into Federal Agencies, U.S. Officials Suspect (NYT) The Trump administration acknowledged on Sunday that hackers acting on behalf of a foreign government—almost certainly a Russian intelligence agency, according to federal and private experts—broke into a range of key government networks, including in the Treasury and Commerce Departments, and had free access to their email systems. Officials said a hunt was on to determine if other parts of the government had been affected by what looked to be one of the most sophisticated, and perhaps among the largest, attacks on federal systems in the past five years. The motive for the attack remains elusive, two people familiar with the matter said. One government official said it was too soon to tell how damaging the attacks were and how much material was lost, but according to several corporate officials, the attacks had been underway as early as this spring, meaning they continued undetected through months of the pandemic and the election season.

Blocked to fly, free to sue (CNN) In an 8-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that three Muslim men who wanted to sue FBI officials for financial damages were clear to proceed, finding that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allowed suits against individual agents. It’s a really interesting case: in 2013, Muhammad Tanzir, Jameel Algibhah and Naveed Shinwari say the FBI attempted to recruit them to become informants, and when they declined the offer they allege the agents retaliated by putting them on no-fly lists, preventing them from getting on any plane that arrives, departs, or passes through the U.S. This, they argue, carried significant financial damages, and they would like to sue to get them. The Justice Department wanted the case thrown out, though the court unanimously held the case could proceed.

Venezuela’s Isolation Increases After Panama Suspends Flights (Bloomberg) Panama has suspended flights from Venezuela, cutting off one of the few remaining air corridors out of the country. Panama’s aviation authority said Sunday that it took the measure after Venezuela restricted access to a Panamanian airline while demanding increased slots in Panama for Venezuelan airlines. The suspension will apply from Sunday until Panama receives “equal and fair treatment,” the authority said in a statement. More than a dozen foreign airlines have stopped servicing Venezuela since 2014, including Delta Air Lines Inc., Deutsche Lufthansa AG and Avianca Holdings SA.

Bolsonaro bump (Foreign Policy) Even as a local newspaper blames his “homicidal negligence” in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is seeing record approval ratings. A recent poll by Brazilian firm Datafolha found that 37 percent of Brazilians see his government as great or good, while the number viewing it as bad or terrible reduced 2 points to 32 percent. Bolsonaro’s relatively solid approval is likely due to his support for a cash benefit for low-income residents hit by the pandemic, which Bolsonaro recently extended until the end of the year.

Daytime darkness: Total solar eclipse wows in Latin America (AP) Thousands of people gathered in the Chilean region of La Araucanía on Monday to witness a solar eclipse, rejoicing in the rare experience even though visibility was limited because of cloudy skies. Skies were clear in northern Patagonia in Argentina, where people also watched the moon briefly block out the sun and plunge daytime into darkness. Many people wore masks to curb the spread of COVID-19, though they crowded together in some places in Pucón and in other areas of La Araucanía, 700 kilometers (430 miles) south of Santiago, the Chilean capital. Thousands jumped and shouted happily in the drizzle when the sun was completely covered by the moon and then silence descended for a few moments. People again screamed and whooped excitedly when the sun appeared again. During the brief period of darkness, only the lights of cell phones were visible. The next total solar eclipse in Chile is expected to occur in 28 years. Another is expected to be visible in Antarctica by the end of 2021.

Ministers warn supermarkets to stockpile food amid no‑deal Brexit fears (Times of London) Supermarkets are this weekend stockpiling food and other goods after being told by ministers that a no-deal Brexit is on the cards. Food producers have warned there will be shortages of vegetables for three months and emergency planners predict that no-deal would spark panic-buying on a scale that could dwarf the coronavirus crisis. In a sign of what might be to come, lorries were backed up for three miles on the A20 outside Dover yesterday, after Calais suffered 10-mile tailbacks on Friday. Hauliers blamed the jams in Kent on “stock-building”.

Protesting Indian farmers call for 2nd strike in a week (AP) Tens of thousands of protesting Indian farmers called for a national farmers’ strike on Monday, the second in a week, to press for the quashing of three new laws on agricultural reform that they say will drive down crop prices and devastate their earnings. The farmers are camping along at least five major highways on the outskirts of New Delhi and have said they won’t leave until the government rolls back what they call the “black laws.” They have blockaded highways leading to the capital for three weeks, and several rounds of talks with the government have failed to produce any breakthroughs. Protest leaders have rejected the government’s offer to amend some contentious provisions of the new farm laws, which deregulate crop pricing, and have stuck to their demand for total repeal.

China’s Combative Nationalists See a World Turning Their Way (NYT) In one Beijing artist’s recent depiction of the world in 2098, China is a high-tech superpower and the United States is humbled. Americans have embraced communism and Manhattan, draped with the hammer-and-sickle flags of the “People’s Union of America,” has become a quaint tourist precinct. This triumphant vision has resonated among Chinese. China’s Communist Party, under its leader, Xi Jinping, has promoted the idea that the country is on a trajectory to power past Western rivals. China stamped out the coronavirus, the messaging goes, with a resolve beyond the reach of flailing Western democracies. Beijing has rolled out homegrown vaccines to more than a million people, despite the safety concerns of scientists. China’s economy has revived, defying fears of a deep slump from the pandemic. “In this fight against the pandemic, there will be victorious powers and defeated ones,” Wang Xiangsui, a retired Chinese senior colonel who teaches at a university in Beijing, averred this month. “We’re a victor power, while the United States is still mired and, I think, may well become a defeated power.” The firm leadership of Mr. Xi and the party has earned China its recent success, say newspapers, television programs and social media. “Time to wake up from blind faith in the Western system,” said a commentary in the state-run China Education News last week. “Vicious partisan fighting has worsened in certain Western countries, social fissures have deepened, and a severe social crisis is brewing.”

Europe-Iran relations (Foreign Policy) European nations have pulled out of a Europe-Iran business forum in protest over the execution of dissident journalist Rouhollah Zam over the weekend. Zam had been kidnapped from Iraq and taken to Iran to face charges of fomenting dissent during anti-government demonstrations in 2017. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was also due to take part in the forum, which has now been cancelled. Iran summoned the German ambassador to Tehran over the European actions, and blasted the “interventionist statements” made in the wake of the execution.

Oil tanker attacked in Saudi Arabian port by “booby-trapped boat” amid ongoing war in Yemen (CBS News) An oil tanker off Saudi Arabia’s port city of Jiddah was attacked on Monday by smaller “boobyt-trapped boat” rigged with explosives, causing a small fire on the ship, Saudi state TV reported, citing an official from the state energy ministry. Earlier a shipping company said the tanker had suffered an explosion after being hit by “an external source,” suggesting another vessel had come under attack amid Saudi Arabia’s years-long war in Yemen. The attack on the Singapore-flagged BW Rhine, which had been contracted by the trading arm of the kingdom’s massive Saudi Arabian Oil Co., marks the fourth assault targeting Saudi energy infrastructure in a month. It also apparently shut down Jiddah port, the most-important shipping point for the kingdom. The United Kingdom Marine Trade Operations, an organization under Britain’s royal navy, urged ships in the area to exercise caution and said investigations were ongoing. It later said Jiddah port had been shut down for a “duration unknown,” without elaborating.

[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.

[ronnyshaiwrites]

Representations of Temporality in the Narrative of the Fragmenting Family

First appeared in The Channel: McGill Department of English Undergraduate Review, vol 12. March 04, 2019

James Merrill’s “The Broken Home” and Michael Ondaatje’s “Letters & Other Worlds” both cast doubt upon the idea of a perfect family. Both poets present bleak domestic pictures: families defined by destructive father figures, despondent mothers, and a young person trying to reconcile themselves with the demise of their family. Each poem depicts the speakers’ anguish in relation to memory, accentuating the contrary relationships each has to the passage of time. The speaker in “The Broken Home” constructs their familial anguish across several interconnected sonnets, which both represents their fractured upbringing and, at the same time, enables them to piece together fragments of their childhood in the form of perceptive memories. Collectively, the seven sonnets which comprise “The Broken Home” depict the splintering of the speaker’s domestic life and, through a restructuring of non-linear memories, depict their attempts at rebuilding a narrative from its component parts. In “Letters & Other Worlds,” however, the speaker remains fixed in the present. Ondaatje’s speaker tells a linear narrative in free verse, allowing for the contemplation of their father’s past transgressions through an open discourse with memory. The speaker, who collects memories from their father’s writings, recounts the rupturing of their family in the public sphere, with each letter further revealing the repercussions of their father’s alcoholism. Whereas the speaker in “The Broken Home” uses the many sonnets to a frame a traumatic negotiation between transient temporalities of the mature speaker, their family, and that of a younger self, Ondaatje’s speaker’s linear narrative is rooted in an enduring temporality from which they cannot escape. Despite the differences in these two poems, both feature the now adult speaker attempting to make peace with the memories that continue to haunt them.

The fragmented yet interconnected sonnet structure of “The Broken Home” parallels the anguish that the speaker feels in piecing together scattered memories into a narrative of reflection. The order of the sonnets, which are each set in a different moment in time, creates a non-linear chronology of the speaker’s life. Both the first and sixth sonnet are set in the present. Here, the speaker contrasts past grievances found in the middle sonnets by showing how the events of their childhood affect them in the present. The speaker uses a collection of recurring motifs which associate each one of their parents to an emotional state across time. In alluding to their parents as symbols, the speaker creates a dialogue between themselves and their parents across multiple temporalities. In the third sonnet, the speaker describes their parents as living out “that same old story— / Father Time and Mother Earth, / A marriage on the rocks” (Merrill 40-42). The personification of Earth as their mother and Time as their father returns in the sixth sonnet, set in the present: the speaker asks the reader to “trust I am no less time’s child” (76) while also being “earth’s no less” (84). No longer capitalized, the once proper nouns “earth” and “time” suggest the speaker has moved forward from the idealized versions of their parents’ relationship, now seeing clearly that their “marriage [was] on the rocks” (42), cementing the image of their parent’s relationship as one that is solely destructive. Unable to be fixed to a single temporality, Time and Earth are also seen to be transcendent entities. Like their parents’ broken marriage, events of the past can defy chronology and become superimposable onto multiple temporalities, no longer confined to a linear perspective. The speaker connects ideas between sonnets by juxtaposing time frames, usually with a distinct change exemplified by a word, motif, or phrase used to signify a reinterpretation of past events. From these developments in the speaker’s perspective, a clearer understanding of the past situates the reasons for their present strife.

Similarly, the speaker in “Letters & Other Worlds” employs incremental repetition as a connecting device, contrasting their father’s hopeful letters of familial intimacy with their memories of a fractured childhood. The first two quatrains use incremental repetition of “my father’s body was” (Ondaatje 1, 6) and “His letters were a” (6, 9) to indicate the speaker’s unease, and indecisiveness, in trying to give their father any singular identity. The repetition of similar phrases with interchanging nouns represents the speaker’s attempts to define their father in a single temporality. It is not a “globe of fear” (1), in which the speaker finds their father, nor is his body a “town we never knew” (2), and his letters are not a “room he seldom lived in” (4). Even as the images in which the speaker tries to place their father reduce in physical size; from the “globe” (1), to a “town” (6), and finally to a lone “room” (9), the scope of his perceived afflictions only expands past the boundaries of any single one of said spaces. The speaker, unable to locate their father within the limited temporal space of his writings follows him “into his room with bottles” (56), manifesting himself within the physical space where “the gentle letters were composed” (60). In having to translocate themselves into their father’s writing room, the speaker suggests that from the confined temporality of the present, past transgressions are more challenging to interpret and thus a physical transcendence is also necessary.

Ondaatje’s speaker’s indecision contrasts the clarity that the non-linear progression of time affords the speaker in “The Broken Home,” the intermingling of time and space proven better equipped to capture the displaced thoughts of a fracturing family. The overlaying of like ideas between sonnets allows the reader to see the growth of the speaker’s anguish emerge over the course of their lifetime, depicted, as the poem progresses, as an emotional awakening. It is from these shared temporal spaces that the speaker makes conclusions about their family’s tumultuous lives. For Ondaatje’s speaker, their inability to locate understanding is due to the absence of a shared temporal space, one which is later found within their father’s letters.

In “Letters,” imagistic motifs help to contrast the speaker’s memories with the positive idealism of family life as it is portrayed in their father’s letters. The reinterpretation of memory found in those letters aid the speaker to resolve past grievances. When recollecting how their father passed, the speaker remembers him falling, “the length of his body / so that brain blood moved / to new compartments” (Ondaatje 13-15). The speaker recounts the reaching of a “new equilibrium” (17) to have been the cause of his death. Later in the poem, after the speaker’s immersion in the writings of their father, they recount the episode differently. “[T]he length of his body” (74) fell, yet “the blood entering / the empty reservoir of bones” (75-76) now creates a filling of space which the speaker could not imagine simply from memory. Through his letters, the speaker is more clearly able to observe their father’s struggles from his perspective. Whereas the speaker previously saw the reaching of a new “equilibrium” as what killed their father, his letters give the speaker insight as to what the idea of balance meant to their father and thus, changes their perception of his passing. The blood filling their father’s brain becomes an image of fulfilment, instead of one of desolation. In reconceiving their father’s writings, the speaker reimagines the reaching of equilibrium as their father achieving a state of balance – defying a precarious instability which can be escaped only in death. From this temporality, emerging from the medium of the letter, the speaker learns that it is not the equalizing movement of blood into the brain which killed their father, but rather his trying to balance the rushing of blood around his body – metaphoric for the inability to balance private and public life, and ultimately his downfall. Letters are a private medium of communication but become public as the speaker delves into their father’s psyche. Situating the speaker as the mediator of the public and private sphere allows them to understand their father’s destructive behaviour. From within the same temporality, the speaker gains greater insight by reading their father’s letters, which allow him to view death from an alternative perspective.

Several temporal shifts within “The Broken Home” are signified by a change in the lyrical diction following a syntactic break, allowing the speaker to express the negative effects of broken domesticity on their character. When moving between the past and present a single word, “obeyed” is transposed from the fifth sonnet to begin the sixth, but with a significant change in tone (Merrill 70). The speaker, who in the fifth sonnet as child, dwells “in the graveyard of good and evil” (69), confirms their parents “are even so to be honored and obeyed” (70). In the sixth sonnet and in a return to the present, they confirms their parents were “. . . Obeyed, at least, inversely. Thus / I rarely buy a newspaper, or vote” (71-72) and in doing so explains the lasting ill effects of the marriage on their adult self. The use of a metaphor in the fifth sonnet notably disconnects it from the sixth, the speaker’s diction becoming apathetically direct. As a mature adult, distant from domestic pain, the speaker holds a less idealistic view of their parent’s relationship, able to emerge from the “graveyard of good and evil” (69). The ellipsis omits the passage of time when the speaker changes their attitude from submissive obedience to contesting their parents’ failings. The temporal lapse allows the speaker to move quickly between past and present thoughts, drawing parallels even as the ideas themselves exhibit disconnect. The carrying over of the word “obeyed” joins together two temporalities through a common emotional state. In the later passage, the mature speaker questions the blind obedience of their youth, contextualizing previous actions with the immediate consequences of their compliance, primarily, an inability to function in normal society.

For the speaker in “The Broken Home,” past grievances of dejected domesticity are a disease which only the transcendence of temporality can remedy. The multiple sonnet structure is a fragmented representation of the speaker’s broken identity, with the speaker transcending both poetic form and time to stitch together the pieces of their broken identity. The speaker in “Letters & Other Worlds” does not communicate between variable temporalities, a result of the medium over which their internal conflict is occurring; the speaker remains, like their father’s representation in the letters, rooted in the past. This speaker uses perception to place their father’s strife to their current temporality, the free-verse structure of the poem permitting communication across two mediums of understanding. Although “Letters” does not bridge together mediums as in “The Broken Home,” Ondaatje questions the implications of letters as being able to expand the temporality from which they are written, opening up a single temporality to various interpretations by the individual. In the same sense, imagining each letter as a token of a previous temporality suggests that such a medium can, to a certain degree, transcend linear time. In viewing the letters as the fleeting thoughts of a foregone mind, then they can indeed affect a reader in the same way recollections of memories are drawn upon to communicate with the present self. Both speakers thereby achieve familial communication, even if such a conversation takes place across time and space.

Works Cited

Merill, James. “The Broken Home.” The Norton Anthology of Poetry. 6th ed., edited by Margaret Ferguson, Tim Kendall, and Mary Jo Salter, W.W. Norton and Co., 2018 pp. 1771-1774.

Ondaatje, Michael. “Letters & Other Worlds” The Norton Anthology of Poetry. 6th ed., edited by Margaret Ferguson, Tim Kendall, and Mary Jo Salter, W.W. Norton and Co., 2018 pp. 1771-1774.

[alexsmitposts]

UK: Everyone Now Drowning in Enoch’s Rivers of Blood The Prophet Enoch is a well-known figure in the Old Testament. Consequently his name has been popular as a personal name at certain periods, with parents of Jewish and Christian backgrounds naming their sons after him. The name never used to have any significance, except in reference to the biblical figure, other family members or some minor celebrity used to be the fictional character “Aynuk”, who features in comic dialogues with his mate “Ayli” (Eli) in local humour from the Black Country, the industrial area to the west of Birmingham – if you can understand the dialect. But nowadays it is a very brave person who dares give their child the name Enoch. It has developed connotations so disturbing that no one wants to be associated with it. “Enoch” is an insult you give to a particularly nasty, bigoted, narrow minded racist who is happy to be that way, regardless of the harm it causes. Call someone that, and you expect a violent or verbally aggressive reaction, a lot of other people joining in, and probably several trips to the hospital. So why has the man who destroyed the reputation of this name come back into the news? In the UK, where he did his evil deeds, there was no story. But the rest of the world has noticed his resurgence for the same reason they do when former Communists gain votes in Eastern bloc countries, and the German and Italian far right make comebacks. These countries are supposed to have got over all that nonsense, but here they are, backsliding into the bad old days. For over fifty years, British political life has tried to move beyond Enoch Powell. Now he is being looked back on with fondness by the most extraordinary constituency. What he represents has gained a new respectability – and this is as frightening as any nuclear bomb, or deranged US president, when you realise why this has happened, and how easily it can happen anywhere else. Beyond fame One of many ironies in this story is that he wasn’t even supposed to be an Enoch. The notorious former Conservative and then Ulster Unionist MP was christened John Enoch Powell, and therefore not expected to use his middle name in everyday life. Powell was always known to be intellectually brilliant. He was a classical scholar who university contemporaries remembered being very much a loner, simply because he couldn’t find anyone of his own level to talk to. Even near the end of his life, when accused of agreeing with something outrageous in conversation at a dinner, a witness to the event commented: “He wouldn’t remember because he is always in the clouds above us. He was probably speaking Aramaic at the time.” Yet despite his many gifts and accomplishments, Powell lives in history as a result of a speech he made in Birmingham in 1968 in which he attacked mass immigration from the British Commonwealth. This is known as the “Rivers of Blood” speech, because although he didn’t actually use those words, he quoted this line from Virgil’s Aeneid: “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’”. This astonishing attack on people of colour by a senior politician got Powell sacked from the Shadow Cabinet (the opposition party’s alternative ministerial team). But they struck a chord with many people who felt that the UK was being overrun by “foreigners” (non-white people), and they were becoming strangers in their own land. Though hardly anyone in a public position wanted to be associated with Powell thereafter, his views were shared by many voters, who thus considered themselves a persecuted underclass, being robbed of what was rightfully theirs by a liberal elite incapable of representing them. Exactly the same arguments used by the Brexit cult and its supporters today. Down the pub, in safe environments, you could admit to agreeing with Enoch Powell. In places regarded as “respectable” and “establishment,” his views and supporters were beyond the pale. Yet now, in a poll by the radio station of The Times newspaper, the most “establishment” journal of all, 16% of respondents have stated that Enoch Powell, out of a long list of historical figures, would have made a good Prime Minister. That is the third highest number. Just imagine how loved someone must be to be the third most desired leaderin any country’s history. Powell died over twenty years ago. But his racist rhetoric, and general outspokenness on other subjects, are still part of the UK’s political legacy. Everyone still knows who Enoch was, and why he’s famous, and has an opinion on him. Far from softening his reputation, time has magnified it beyond the many failures Powell endured after his notorious speech. So have the many attempts, at every official level, to declare him and his views unacceptable., because these are so obviously political in nature, dictates from above. When consulted by people in authority about other issues, people who agree with Powell think they are being spoken to as fellow human beings. If they mention race issues,they feel they are talking to a dictated opinion, imposed upon the people who repeat it as much as them. This sends them running to anyone who can treat them with respect, but still hold these abhorrent views. But Brexit has taken the sad rehabilitation of Enoch Powell to another level. Leaving the EU remains as it always was: the mantra of those who feel dispossessed because they have the “wrong views” on immigration and many other matters. Winning that argument has made the “Enochs” feel they are now in charge, and can behave however they like. BoJo the Clown and his circus have made this acceptable, and they pride themselves on doing what no other government has dared to say or do, because that in itself makes them heroes to people who just want someone to listen to them. All this has made Enoch a Prophet once again. For some he is a martyr to political correctness, the forerunner of Farage who suffered for being on the side the Brexit referendum has now proved right, in its own eyes. But most of us never deal with anyone like Enoch Powell. We don’t have a framework to see him within. This isn’t because it doesn’t exist, but because it does – and makes us all look so stupid, we wish it didn’t. Beyond point Powell has had several biographers. Each one has soon discovered that Powell had very clear positions on a wide range of topics, each meticulously argued, often in the face of intellectual disapproval. For example, it is generally agreed that although Saint Matthew’s Gospel is placed first in the New Testament, Saint Mark’s Gospel was written earlier. Powell spent decades trying to prove the contrary, with a supreme belief in his own understanding backed by wide and deep scholarship few can ever have equalled in this field. The big task for a biographer is to work out how all Powell’s different positions fitted together, and what this tells us about the man. Each one has made a point of saying they have done this. But by the act of doing so, they make clear that there isn’t a definitive understanding, and that what they think may be their personal conclusion, but there is room for argument. As a result of the horrible views he expressed, no one wants to bracket Powell with other great geniuses. But he was undoubtedly a major figure in the political life of his day, even when he no longer had any chance of office, or even a party he could call his own. Major figures do have one thing in common. Everyone who is good at a particular thing is very different from all the others who are good at it. Think of artists, car makers, sportspersons, newsreaders – if they are good, they are distinct, and do what only they can do. Brilliant people have the next dimension up. They can only function by being not only different, but the opposite. They cannot accept the arguments everyone else finds persuasive. They can only exercise their brains by arguing the opposite of what everyone else accepts, simply because only people of their intellectual level can do that successfully. Enoch Powell was an early exponent of what later became known as monetarism. He developed his views at a time when Keynesianism was the accepted logic, backed by powerful political and social forces which declared all non-accepters to be morally maladjusted, unable to grasp the rightness of the new, post World War Two classless society. In time, professional economists started drawing the same conclusions as Powell. Most of these probably never knew that Powell had had the same ideas first, and wouldn’t have wanted to admit it if they had, because he was a layman in economic terms. But when Keynesianism ran its course, politicians such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, like Powell conservatives who gloried in seeming extreme, adopted a lot of Powell’s own economic thinking as if it were their own. Most thinkers in such circumstances would be glad to be proved right. But Powell was rather upset, insisting that these people didn’t really understand his arguments. What he meant was, if his arguments were so poor that his inferiors could understand them, they weren’t as good as he thought they were. The mere fact that his views had been accepted meant he had to reject them as unworthy of his superior intelligence. This is the one common thread in Enoch Powell’s outrageous and contrary bucketful of opinions. They were so wrong that only a brilliant man would be able to think and argue them. Powell needed the power of his own argument, which was always more important to him than believing a word he said. Maybe Enoch Powell really did believe his evil rhetoric. But that wasn’t important. The point was to gain intellectual stimulus by trying to make the impossible true. It’s the way brilliant people operate. But doesn’t it remind you of anyone else? Beyond acceptance Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are in broadly the same part of the political spectrum Powell was. Neither is regarded as anywhere near as brilliant as Enoch. But they attract the same sort of visceral adoration from the same type of people: those who feel excluded for having the “wrong views,” who feel these wilful outsiders represent their interests and no one else does. Both Trump and Johnson are regarded by many as pathological liars, and with considerable justification. This is often considered, rightly or wrongly, to be par for the course for politicians. What makes these two different is that they don’t seem to care, or understand why anyone else should. Trump is so associated with lying to his back teeth that people began counting his lies even before he had been elected. Since then, this has become a cottage industry, and has produced disturbing data. But Donald doesn’t care, and neither do his supporters. All that matters is that he makes the argument he wants to make, no matter how wrong and downright dangerous it is. He doesn’t feel any need to believe a word he says, or have anyone else believe it, it is all about how he says it. BoJo was sacked for lying when he was a newspaper columnist, and has made a long string of offensive statements about every segment of the population, in print and in person. Thousands of these are also well-documented. When this was brought to his attention, he told everyone to ignore whatever he might have written or said. It was all show, people shouldn’t conclude that he actually believed anything he’d ever said or done in his whole life. Those who buy into the racist rhetoric and wilful contrariness of Enoch Powell, Donald Trump and Boris Johnson do so because they believe in what these men say. It matters to them, it’s important. But those who say it are only interested in advancing an argument to convince themselves they can get away with it. They don’t have to believe it themselves, and aren’t interested in whether they do. Maybe we want someone to con us so we don’t have to admit we’ve conned ourselves. We all know, deep down, that conning ourselves leads to nowhere good. We don’t want to put ourselves in that place, or our friends and family. So we let Enoch and Donald and Boris do it for us, in public, and let them take the blame for what we have chosen to become. This is what these people represent, and as Enoch isn’t alive to disappoint anyone, he always will – if we let him, by continuing to let his successors get away with it.

[captain-sodapop]

With Hamilton coming out on Disney+ today and the Fourth of July tomorrow, and then with the current climate of things, I’m going to say something as someone who doesn’t think the all-or-nothing approach is always appropriate, so here it goes:

The founders have a complicated legacy.

They were, undoubtedly, problematic men. All fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence were land-holding white men, many of whom were slaveholders or took part in the slave trade in some way, not to mention the other bigoted views of that time (which, are not consigned only to that time, obviously. The same prejudices they held still exist today - even thrive - and we have a lot of work to do to undo these systems of oppression and bigotry.) These guys aren’t their characters in any play, or perfect human beings.

Thing is, though - a sometimes very frustrating thing, I know - is that these deeply flawed men gave us this slow-work-in-progress of a country that almost nobody seems to want to give up on. It is an ongoing experiment, a growing and changing thing. We continue to use the basic principles they set up to try and make it a better place. We rely daily on the first amendment to get the necessary work done to make such progress; hell, I’ve recently seen the third amendment used for the first time in how long? Something we thought was so antiquated was now used to get the national guard out of Washington DC. Our Constitution was made amendable from the very start because its authors were aware of the fact that as the nation grew and changed, its laws and constitution would inevitably change as well, whether they liked it or not. While our democratic system is due for some serious work, the great thing is that we can absolutely make changes and still keep many of the things that do work (and yes, there are things about it that work.)

Writing the Declaration of Independence was an act of treason; if the colonies had lost the war, the signers would have been executed, and we would have no country. The Constitution is the first modern system of government to be born of thought and debate, not violence and war. Americans cherish our right to vote, and many are fighting every day to expand that to as many people as possible so we can all exercise our right to voice our opinion (in a way that is hopefully more direct someday.) We are promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in this day and age, that promise extends to EVERYBODY. It might not have when it was written, but those guys aren’t around anymore to tell us it can’t.

But they still wrote it. Thomas Jefferson, for whatever reason, changed the enlightenment phrase from “property” to “happiness.” He still wrote that we are all created equal (yes, I get the irony, roll with me here for a second) and we all have the right to live, to be free, to be happy. Where else do you find something like that? Seriously - the right to happiness. That’s sort of a beautiful thing. And thanks to those assholes and their miracles at Philadelphia, we have many of the tools we need to make that a reality for every person in this country. It’s a pisser that it has been an uphill battle for nearly 250 years, but things that once seemed impossible have been achieved, and we can’t stop until the full promise of life, liberty, and happiness for all is obtained. Failure was not an option then, when the founders wanted to establish a country separate from Britain, and it is not an option now, as we use the tools they gave us - old and new - to make the country they established a more just and equal place for everyone in it.

This was not written in an attempt to get you to grovel at the founders’ feet or feel like you have to like them because you absolutely don’t. However: for as problematic as they were, they did some important, groundbreaking, literally revolutionary shit, and we cannot ignore that. That is what Hamilton captures so well - think of the line “this is not a moment, it’s a movement.” That perfectly describes what was happening then and what is happening now. You don’t need to admire these men as people, but you do have to remember that they promised happiness, and risked everything for it. I get that this is frustrating, and that it would be so much simpler to write them off as villains of history, but their contributions cannot go ignored. The system they built has lasted - somehow - for nearly 250 years. We are still infants, with so much work to do but still having come so far.

So, in short: please do not write Thomas Jefferson x Reader smut, but remember that he promised you happiness, and do everything you can to make sure EVERYBODY gets that to spite him. The most patriotic thing you can do this Independence Day is to fight those abusing our systems of power and work to give everyone a voice, to give them justice, to give them happiness. THAT is in keeping with the patriotic spirit of this country - not drinking beer and blaring country music while you stick a firecracker up your ass.

[bbq-hawks-wings]

There are times when we get caught up in black and white, either/or, and all or nothing. We forget sometimes to breathe, step back, and find the gray in between. Sometimes we recognize that those hard lines in the sand are drawn more out of habit than any concrete reasoning we can immediately muster, and that there isn't really a justifiable reason to place such great emphasis on separating the thing in question in the first place. Opinions on evaluations of fictional characters are held in extremes as marks of character and points of contention within fandom far and above what they usually should be.

For many, fandom is a form of escape above mere entertainment. Comfort characters garner a following of people who often share enough commonality to bolster each other and bind them together in support as they cheer on and vicariously live through each and every one of that character's victories. Occasionally, though, these characters can end up having the exact opposite effect.

Even putting my personal feelings about Takami Keigo aside, I've always been fascinated by what he objectively is as an anime character. Though I fully recognize that removing myself from the equation is difficult, if I had to put my impression of what he is in the industry into words I'd say he feels like lightning in a bottle. It's not often in anime I find a character with such an appealing and striking visual design within his own series and next to characters of any other series, alongside such an endearing and clearly defined characterization in the way he's written and the way he acts - the whole combination of which is more powerful than the sum of its parts is something I can only describe as plain and simply "appealing" - and the mundaness of the word betrays the profound extent to which that definition applies. Almost anyone in the world could look at that character with no prior knowledge and say and say, "I like him." Almost anyone who might venture to look a little deeper would probably say at the very least, "Yup, I can appreciate that character exists" even if it stopped there.

There's likely far more of these kinds of characters in anime than I give them credit for, but Hawks has struck a chord with me in particular that resonates far more than most other examples I could think of. He's done the same with many more, I know. I am not the only Hawks-centered meta/analysis blog on this site alone by any stretch of the imagination. I wouldn't be surprised if my own more-often-than-not, self-indulgent interpretation of events has however many more rolling their eyes at my work. I experience the same thing myself on occasion in regards to content I disagree with (all in good faith, please understand - we all have different tastes and viewpoints and that's a good thing), but in this particular context I find something exceptionally bittersweet in it.

For some, it's simply bitter because they place an emotional stake in the ultimate fate of Takami Keigo far above what I do - something that's much more personal and valuable than I often realize; or maybe I do, but those reasons why simply strike far more deep and personal for others than I can personally relate to.

From the very beginning Hawks has been framed in the moral gray of the greater context of the My Hero Academia lore. He is not all good but not all bad. The way he interacts with others comes across as cold and calculating, but his inner thoughts betray a warmth and depth that's deeply endearing. The contrast of the massive good he seeks to do despite the profound wickedness of his upbringing has captured the hearts of many and has them thinking more or less the same thing, "This character has such an undeniable amount of good in his heart that he deserves to end up happy after all the pain he's been through."

"He deserves to be free. He shouldn't have to be alone anymore. He should do what makes him happy, not anyone else." Every single Hawks fan I've heard from has echoed these same core sentiments, though it's taken many forms.

Herein lies the near paradox of his fanbase, ironically befitting his ambiguous nature: the very traits that endear him to individual fans are often the context and lens by which they define the key to the ultimate happiness they want for him, and that spectrum is a wide one to the point of having one of the most diverse dedicated fanbases to a single character I've ever seen.

Just as an easy example, for someone who latched onto the fact he was used like a literal tool for others' gain, they may see the key to Hawks' happiness in rebellion - kicking the system, fighting the man, going apeshit for once next to people who also are tired of being trampled over.

For someone who recognizes his unwavering desire to do good and help others despite his developmental environment may see him being handed the reins of his own life back to him as his ticket - to have the choice of saying yes or no, to be able to keep going or just fly away merely because he wants to.

I have to pause and emphasize that they key to understanding both perspectives is catharsis for the audience in question, and while I have my own opinions as to which is more befitting to the character as written, I am placing equal emphasis on both interpretations as valid reasons to root for the ultimate outcome in each scenario.

This is all in response to comments I've received thanking me for being so steadfast and vocal in my insistence that while Hawks' formal allegiance may change, his heart and the way he feels towards heroes in general will not. I may have my personal preference and own interpretation of what that will look like in the end, but the key takeaway is that I don't see him bucking the entire heart of the hero movement in hopes to get back at the Hero Commission.

However, that isn't to say I don't understand or look down upon those who either genuinely have come to a different conclusion or would just rather see it happen because it would be more satisfying or interesting for them in particular. I also wouldn't be sore if it ended up coming to pass assuming the buildup to that point felt appropriate and genuine as I don't see it as an impossibility for his character. For me, it doesn't have to be a point of contention driving a wedge between different Hawks fans.

So if you ever feel frustrated or upset at the amount of support in your preference or lack thereof in your desired direction, don't let it get to you. While others have their own reasons for wanting the ending they want, the overall result they want from him is more than likely the same as you.

I asked a completely informal poll giving people an either/or ultimatum for where fans personally wanted him to end up, purposely leaving out a potential third option; but the replies I got overwhelmingly echoed the same one regardless of the false either/or I intentionally planted, "I have my preferences for where I want him to end up, but really all I want is for him to be free and do what he wants in the end because it's what HE wants to do."

That's amazing!

Simply by virtue of my own audience or the way it rippled through the community it could be biased in any direction, but when at least HALF of the total responses say, "Neither" in some capacity regardless of a forced preference I think it's safe to say that we all have a lot more in common regarding this character than we often realize, and he isn't even real!

Hawks was always gray on purpose, and I really hope at the end of his arc we get something that pulls together and unites the other characters in the series as well as the fans because I think that's the point of his character to begin with. I doubt everyone will be completely happy with the outcome off the bat, but as long as it's genuinely satisfying from a character development standpoint I hope we can pull together in support knowing we can't always get what we want, but it was a good run - plus there's always fan fiction for when the author got it wrong!

For real, though, let's get excited together. Find your corner, but follow the character not the crowd. You don't have to think of them as perfect, and sometimes the characters that even end up disappointing us the most stick with us longer. We can always dig a little deeper to find out why they did what they did, or why we want something so badly for them, and even just acknowledge when we just want what we want because we want it. That doesn't make us bad people or bad fans. Fiction is usually written to be enjoyed - HeroAca definitely not an exception to that general rule - and tastes in entertainment vary far and wide. Any one series with that variety of expectations aimed at it just can't satisfy everyone so I'd personally rather it stick to the story it was trying to tell from the beginning instead of succumbing to a popularity vote, even if I didn't get the ending I wanted.

I just hope this was a comfort to some of you and an olive branch to others in case you were feeling down about how others viewed your comfort character or just caught up in another ultimately pointless fandom war because it happens. Maybe we can even use it as an exercise to see things from another viewpoint to understand their perspective and realizing it's okay to agree to disagree. I don't want to put this in the character tags because I think there are plenty that don't need or want this content but still those that do who will find and share it in confidence. This isn't about sides or even being right. Let's enjoy our favorite character together and watch him be happy in the end, however that ends up being.