Survivalist Forum banner

Militia or The Local Church Homegroup - Pick ONE

9K views 106 replies 44 participants last post by  Exarmyguy 
#1 ·
I have no experience with militias, but see them here and there, especially now.

I have a lot of experience with both big and small churches, but never a homegroup, which is the big thing now.

Some militias look professional and disciplined like the Idaho 3%ers in the other militia thread. However most look undisciplined and untrained. Likewise, some churches are just social clubs. However some are very dialed in to the times and understand the Word.

Throw out your PROS and CONS of committing to ONE or the OTHER as your network to rely upon, defend, and survive together if things get unimaginable.
 
#40 ·
Throw out your PROS and CONS of committing to ONE or the OTHER as your network to rely upon, defend, and survive together if things get unimaginable.
Church Group:

Pros: People you already know and trust. A common belief system. A sense of accountability to other members.

Cons: Possible infighting unless well organized and clear leadership.

Militia:

Pros: Uniformed and organized. (Hopefully) being lead by formerly Senior NCOs, Senior Officers, or Senior LEOs etc.

Cons: Like Zeke mentioned above, when a fighting group goes without an enemy for too long it becomes demoralized and will quickly try and fill the void with politics and racial BS. It would suck to put in the time and energy to a group that changed to a moral standpoint you just can't agree with.

You might end up with people with different principles. Historically, when armed groups gain any type of power or authority the chance for corruption and infringement goes up.

Self Importnat Dirtbags. ie Gator Monroe types who want any excuse to shoot someone they don't like..
 
#46 ·
I am very aware of the SLA Marshall controversy and also aware that there are more sides to that issue than that which is described in the wikipedia article. You took one of the sides and that is valid and perfectly reasonable.

However the greater issue is that we are at an impasse for some reason. Regardless, I can completely appreciate your position and understand where you are coming from.

Yes my "awful long dissertation" was a way to deal with insomnia this morning and before I realized it, I had actually typed quite a bit. Sorry.

I am sorry if I made you uncomfortable or offended you (vagina).

I am very accustomed to dealing with the diversity of character that is encountered in all branches of the military as well as the pursuant veterans community and the difficulties that I frequently witness as they try to re-integrate into society. We do a great job of making civilians into soldiers but a lousy job of making solders back into civilians. There also is a direct correlation in many cases between the amount of combat experience and the degree of reintegration difficulty. This is an issue that I have worked to address with military, corporate, and church leadership for several years now. I presented this in a........you know what..........you're right, I don't know haven't a clue what goes on in the mind of vets. Be well
 
#49 ·
However the greater issue is that we are at an impasse for some reason. Regardless, I can completely appreciate your position and understand where you are coming from.
We are at an impasse? LOL!

No, you are because you think you can read about the military to understand it when you rejected your chance to live it.

You had your moment to challenge yourself but you chose the easy path instead.

You were never one of us and you will never be one of us. Nor will you ever understand us.

The fact of the matter is that many of us not only will never let you fight with us, we really don't think you deserve to be an equal to us in everyday life. We believe as Heinlein did. You don't deserve citizenship. You chose selfish indulgent safety while we chose to be selfless and intrepid. We knew had basically one moment in life to stand up and be of the most value, and we didn't hesitate. We chose to be sheepdogs and you chose the painless path of the sheep. Why even let you ever have a voice?

So keep waving your books and your crackpot hypotheses. My contempt for sheep remains unchanged.
 
#50 ·
Not sure what type of church group you are refering to, however, from a prepping standpoint it would really depend on the groups involved and what their operations plans are.

Church groups often are involved in the community in disaster releif, emergency situations and such, so if you are in a smaller community where you can assist in that situation through those organizations then these are a good fit.

What church groups may not be good for WROL type situations. Essentially the history of the church is the backbone of civil society - however albeit seperation of church and state in terms of governance.

Militias are there to help preserve law and order, they can only function if there are there to assist government in exercise of the law and insuring public order. They can of course also be used to help in times of emergencies and disaster. It all depends on the militia group.

I agree with Both. People shouldn't limit themselves. Although you hear about groups like masons or church groups having bars on political engagement or crossovers. I think at the end of the day a church group would probably be the most active in a local community on an ongoing basis, while the militia is something that is suited to more extreme events.

Again these left right, yes no type questions fail to grasp the ambiguity of life in that there are no black and white situations in life, rather life is a shade of grey.

I think personally I would be more likely to be involved in local relief efforts put on by a church group, as I am not aware of any releif activities being done by militia groups. However in the event of a foreign invasion I would not hestiate to lay my life on the line to protect the people I care about, and engage with peopole of common purpose to maintain law and order.


In larger cities you will see organizations like the red cross and salvation army involved here. While local churches can still serve their neigbourhood/parishes, generally speaking I think church organizations are better suited as local organizations. While militias tend to cover a wider geographical area and arn't often involved in coordinating for widespread releif efforts. The types of acvitities just arn't the same.


Now I am not saying it is all this way or that way for example https://www.npr.org/2020/04/01/8254...pot-a-militia-says-it-wants-to-provide-relief


It is all about helping whoever is stepping up to fill the gap government is unwilling or unable to provide to protect people and things.

There are people and such who really don't think it is the governments job to take care of people and that is why those organizations need to step up.

Fact is church groups will be out therer ongoing in their areas, while I think militias tend to only become involved at a more extreme level outside their organization.

In a church group there is probably ongoing community issues without fail.

Its such a broad question though. I think you will be amazed how the mold you might think fits on the shoe of a militia or church group simply doesn't fit once you see all the different orgs that are out there and active

https://www.americanpartisan.org/20...s-play-in-the-upcoming-unpleasantness-anyway/

There are people that will start a file on you if you say Militia. While most Church groups are under the radar unless they are considered a "cult".

Obviously you need to be sure that any group you join has strong support of government and law enforcement because government and law enforcement is the shining example of goodness and right in the world.
 
#51 ·
Not sure what type of church group you are refering to, however, from a prepping standpoint it would really depend on the groups involved and what their operations plans are.
You made a lot of good observations in your post but I wanted to answer this question.

It's an extremely popular movement in the world and especially in China and the US now to have a church homegroup, which is just the church folks that meet on Sunday, broken up into small sub-groups that meet at someones house on a weekday evening.

The idea is that you really dont get super involved with people at the Sunday service, so this is a way to really sew the church community together in support groups.

To me, it sort of replaces Sunday school for adults with a less "classroom like" setting.
 
#58 ·
The people in the group are more important than the label of the group itself.

So the group that is less full of duchebags.

The indicator would be the group that sacrifices itself to make other people bdeter. So volunteer groups, church groups if they are not just wackos. Mabye a milita if they are not run by a tin pot general.

But the group that is getting things done for other people now when they don't have to is the group I would trust to get things done when they do.

And this idea that a certain section of humanity is better than the rest just because of their profession is cult rubbish propagated by wannabes.

Stay all the way away from that toxic nonsense.
 
#62 ·
I served with plenty of dirtbags, alcoholics, lazy asses, thieves, adulterers, etc. even child molesters. In fact, the military was commonly considered as society's reform school prior to 9/11. I served with very few like myself from dual-parent, middle class homes with any sort of moral foundation. Most were from the dregs trying to move up or get a GI Bill (which at the time was pathetic compared to the post 9/11).

Veteran status, outside of special operations or other proven classifications with documented experience, weighs very little on my decisions of who is a "worthy" individual. When you have been around the military your entire life you don't really buy the general "Veterans in muh group" BS.
 
#80 ·
I've seen the elephant, have a CIB from Baghdad. Drove point for 6 months of a 15 month tour back in 07. We had cowards in our ranks even in infantry land. The guys going into the tour who talked a lot or showed the most bravado were overcompensating and were worthless under fire.

Church folks generally talk too much so I tend to avoid associating with them. I was homeless 5 years ago and the local church knew and not one person helped me get out of the cold or helped me get on my feet. I'm not going to trust them through the tough stuff.

Militia group- nope. Want nothing to do with those types.

My civilian friends would be stout in a fight. Lost 80 pct of my friends through the experience of being homeless and the 20 pct who stuck around are rock solid. They stood by me when I had nothing to offer. Friends like that are good in a survival situation. There are times when the **** is hitting the fan where you aren't your best and you need people who will bring out the best in you.

Cornteen, how you come across is pretty flippant so I can't say I'd want you in my group.
 
#83 ·
Those who have been part of a church realize that churches are communities like anything else. There are good, bad and ugly parts to every community. The thing is about a small group is that in many cases, those that are part of a church “small group” end up becoming a very tight knit group of people that are somewhere between best friends and family. Those who don’t really agree fundamentally with the rest of the group tend to fall off and people who are added are typically “recruited” as those compatible with the group. Our church small group are people who I trust as much as I trust anyone. We have helped each h other in very difficult situations and have had trials to our relationships that have tested the authenticity.

Though most of them haven’t served and aren’t your combat hardened vet, but over time I have shared some of my survival values some of which have been adopted by others in the group. I’ve introduced many of them to firearms through range trips and even recruited a couple of them into my hunting group. They have skills to support and defend beyond 90% of the population and would be happy to have them as part of my small community of survivalists of the time came.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#84 ·
Those who have been part of a church realize that churches are communities like anything else. There are good, bad and ugly parts to every community. The thing is about a small group is that in many cases, those that are part of a church “small group” end up becoming a very tight knit group of people that are somewhere between best friends and family. Those who don’t really agree fundamentally with the rest of the group tend to fall off and people who are added are typically “recruited” as those compatible with the group. Our church small group are people who I trust as much as I trust anyone. We have helped each h other in very difficult situations and have had trials to our relationships that have tested the authenticity.

Though most of them haven’t served and aren’t your combat hardened vet, but over time I have shared some of my survival values some of which have been adopted by others in the group. I’ve introduced many of them to firearms through range trips and even recruited a couple of them into my hunting group. They have skills to support and defend beyond 90% of the population and would be happy to have them as part of my small community of survivalists of the time came.
Yup. Church groups aren't special because of the church. It's just another group that has a convenient scanning once a week. You could do the same at work or at an Elk's Lodge. If you wanted to get more serious then try a CERT group. Militias though are trying to imitate a military force. Self help groups and military groups have wildly different agendas. Safety and continuity are part of a self help group's game plan. Military groups cannot be that way. Training aids a self help group to prosper, but training only delays the demise of a military group. Military groups get better by actual fighting. Veteran cadre helps to blunt the worst of the initial learning curve, but soldiers need to become blooded to be truly effective.

In WW2 they threw the green units into the big battles and accepted the losses. The blooded units were then pulled back and reorganized for the hardest missions. If you separated out the mass invasion attacks then you saw a difference in mission assignments. The units that saw the worst were repeatedly put into the same situation because they were battle hardened. Later the man-for-man replacement in Vietnam tried to replicate that but usually failed.

How can you replicate the need for "blooding" in a militia unit? You can't. Sure, you can recruit former military but that still just staves off entropy. Add into the mix the wannabees and now you have a real problem.

If the VFW organized militia units then they might be worth joining as long as the NeoCons kept dragging us into wars. Then your recruit pool of blooded fighters could be refreshed. But the VFW would absolutely never do that. Bring it up at the local post and you would get laughed out of the building. It's not like a civvie can easily enter one and pull up a barstool there either without a member with them.


Now if the world went upside down then dropping by the VFW after the disaster might yield some benefit. Show up with good gear, great health, and buckets of humility for when they judged you. Just don't be surprised if they fleece your best gear and use you as front or back end of the line material. No way they let you be in the middle.
 
#91 ·
I would suspect that if someone is connected to a healthy Church community with likeminded members that it would probably bring the most return on effort expended to work with such people, whatever form that might take.

Even if we were to envisage a scenario where America would fall into a prolonged civil conflict (whether akin to a civil war, "Troubles" in Ireland, etc.), the best thing would be to be networked with likeminded people who can trust and support each other. Their activities could run the gamut of reading groups and local political organizing to prepping supplies or even security of their group, with the prospect of scaling things up as required. Even if the conflict were to get rather violent, given the amount of administration and logistics to fighting troops in a conventional military force, it would seem fitting to develop a great deal of auxiliary support for any faction trying to protect its turf. If we look back to resistance movements of the past, there was plenty of people offering all sorts of support who were not fighting per se, but gathering intelligence, spreading underground newspapers or housing fighters/people on the run from the state. Perhaps it might be more practical to have the more seasoned vets in the group form a ready to fight, kinetic component, while only offering the most basic, defensive type training for others who may have to go about their day armed during dangerous times. At least in a church group of people who are mostly concerned with preserving the well-being of their families, there's slightly less risk of a bunch of Walter Middy wannabes trying to push unrealistic fantasy narratives and egos, and a better chance that people will offer help where they are best able to contribute.

With regards to the discussion about the importance of military service and disparaging of those who didn't serve, all I will point out is that it is rather disappointing. I have had the opportunity to meet some serving and retired people from rather elite units over the years, and while I don't envisage those characters trying to set up their own militia groups, it would seem remarkably petty of them to engage in such disparaging talk of civilians as if they were somehow a different race of people. Besides, with the asymmetrical nature of modern conflict, I wonder how many trained fighters have been killed in recent years by relatively untrained characters who were at the right time and place to do so. Perhaps in closing, working with a Church group might be the best way to prepare for what might come while avoiding such arguments altogether.
 
#99 ·
No, I didn't read all the posts....

I can only speak about the church I attend. A small church and everyone one knows everyone else. They are a "stick together group of people".

They are True Americans. I trust them and they trust me after my being with them for over 47 years.

I will trust this church and not some militarized group I don't know or trust.
 
#104 ·
And I'll keep posting about your selfish and fainthearted choice at 18 for all to see.

I go where I wish when I chose. You don't get a vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoJ_51
#105 ·
Militia vs Church Home Group? Hmmm...

For purely pragmatic reasons, probably the Church Group. Because it's more likely to represent broader community interest, in terms of aims/goals and in terms of wider representation. Obviously, it doesn't represent everyone (e.g., non-church members), but it's a keystone organization for a wider association of folks that inhabit a given geographical area and share certain beliefs & traits.

In other words, it's a Tribal gathering. And a cohesive Tribe is generally key to a successful communal survival effort. Mo' People = Mo' Bettah.

A Militia is an armed group organized for common defense and (to a lesser degree) for conduct of limited-means offense. Almost by definition limited to the number of volunteer military-aged combatants you can rustle up... and keep together long enough to be effective. A number that is going to be significantly less than the larger community-wide membership (all backgrounds, genders, ages) found in a church's membership.

A militia is merely a voluntary Action Cell organized to provide temporary armed response to limited eventualities.

A church group is a voluntary Community Association designed to provide years of consensus response to virtually any eventuality.

A large enough church group is perfectly capable of generating its own militia. But a militia is typically incapable of generating its own community.

-------------------------

With regards to the question of veterans making better militia material? Yeah, sure. In the event of a come-as-you-are party, people who've previously served in a hierarchical organization (military, police, first responders, workers union, etc.) are going to bring more to the table (and quicker) than those who never did.

Because their learning curve is shorter for self-organizing, planning, re-training, and executing operations. Regardless of technical experience (however dated), they already understand how the game is best played. Everything after that is a function of how much time they have to knock the rust off and sharpen the old edge. Or pick up new skills. Or refresh old ones.

If you decided to hold a pickup touch football game in the middle of some big community cookout/block party... which team would you bet on:

1. A bunch of randomly picked adults/teens without ball playing experience? Or...

2. A self-organized pickup team of former high school/college ball players?

That said, you could eventually bring the non-player team into pretty good form with enough physical conditioning, practice time, and good coaching. Especially if the former school players helped out in that training... and integrated themselves amongst the ranks of the inexperienced.

Militias can range from abysmal to superb. That's a function of motivation, experience, leadership, and dedication. As well as basic human material. Some militia groups are little more than social clubs. Some are dysfunctionally dangerous groups of armed & dressed-up buffoons. Some are actually effective small units (especially if they are heavily weighted with bona fide prior combat types).

Given time, resources, and structure, any militia can be professionalized and trained to an acceptable level of competence. From zeroes to heroes, just as long as they can stay together and improve upon prior successes. That was the very raison d'être for the job I did in the military. Raising, organizing, equipping, training, and leading surrogate indigenous forces to conduct combat operations. Something that has worked swimmingly well in several major wars conducted by the USA.

At my last swing at bat doing that job... we fielded ~8000 armed Iraqi SOF pipe-hitters, who were as good in a gun fight as anyone on the planet. Very few of whom had prior military experience (or had even fired a gun) before joining. They were a form of militia who became gradually professionalized and increasingly lethal on the battlefield. Eventually becoming the the very best combatants on that chess board.

Before that, I was doing the same with Afghan tribesmen.
"Tribe": a social division in a traditional society consisting of families or communities linked by social, economic, religious, or blood ties, with a common culture and dialect, typically having a recognized leader.
Armed militia who served as coalition allies or paid mercenaries for US interests. Most of whom had never served a day in anyone's formal military. But all of whom were raised from birth as tribal fighters. Not unlike the warriors of any North American Indian tribe... or the early Minutemen/Militia of 18th Century Colonial America.

So, yeah, if I need to go do something armed tonight, tomorrow, or in just a very few days... I hope my little band is comprised of mostly former 11Bs, 0311s, etc. with recent GWOT combat experience. Because we can get back into the groove quickly, conduct time-constrained rehearsals, SOPs, battle drills, mission planning... and be off to the races with better than average chances of success. Or at least not get ourselves wiped out due to stupidity and lack of experience. Because we already understand the basics, understand the game, and understand our roles.

But give me several weeks or months with a crop of fresh faced 15-45 year-old cherries... and I can eventually deliver you a pretty fair armed & well organized maneuver element. One that will deliver the mail, get better with every confidence target, and not cut & run at the first shot.

Militia effectiveness is almost entirely dependent upon their being well led & trained. Something lacking in many modern day examples. Which is actually nothing new in the military history of militias through the ages. Just something to be understood and planned around.

A local self-identified Militia Group could be anybody. Dangerously anybody... and highly subject to the problem of toxic and hidden small group dynamics. Like moving in to board with a strange family that you actually know little about.

A local Church Group is a broader organization that could be damn near everybody in a wider community. Easier to read, easier to develop consensus among, and easier to sway to common purposes. Those driven by universal need to protect families, community, and property. It provides a larger framework for accomplishment of community survival goals. Everything from raw labor and potential combatants to unique professional skills, local intelligence networking, and logistical support.

Best of both worlds would be a community supported local militia, perhaps initially recruited from the larger totality of a church membership (as well as its reliably vetted non-member neighbors).

As noted up-thread, there's hardly an overt "militia" in the land that isn't already infiltrated and collected on by law enforcement or intelligence agency circles. In some respects, treated exactly as the authorities treat any organized gang. Always watching to see if they can hem them up in some illegality that might stick in front of a grand jury.

Churches? A little bit less so. Churches tend to have influential local financial/power-broker membership. Community members unafraid to use lawyers. Some of them actually being lawyers. People tied together by both their faith and their long personal associations. And, in the case of a church congregation, a little more Constitutional protection extant than with self-declared militias.

During Unconventional Warfare training in places like Europe, I've encountered (and used to my benefit) both types of associations. Used organized church laity & clergy to accomplish certain things. Used long established (and extremely well vetted) WWII/Cold War veteran-comprised militias to accomplish other things.

Those militias were usually closed circles of folks who had known each other from wartime service, from growing up together, and from bringing in their sons & grandsons to continue the organization. You had to be long-standing local to join. And they
never advertised for membership nor showed their (armed) existence in public. Tribal Warrior Societies existing within larger Community Tribes.

Saw the same thing over in the Balkans after the 90s wars. Veterans Associations (militias) were the power groups behind many communities. In some cases, to the betterment of the local populace. In other cases, they'd just become militarily organized mafia... and ran everything in the background (including local government) as a criminal enterprise.

Interesting topic.
 
#106 ·
Militia vs Church Home Group? Hmmm...

For purely pragmatic reasons, probably the Church Group. Because it's more likely to represent broader community interest, in terms of aims/goals and in terms of wider representation. Obviously, it doesn't represent everyone (e.g., non-church members), but it's a keystone organization for a wider association of folks that inhabit a given geographical area and share certain beliefs & traits.

In other words, it's a Tribal gathering. And a cohesive Tribe is generally key to a successful communal survival effort. Mo' People = Mo' Bettah.

A Militia is an armed group organized for common defense and (to a lesser degree) for conduct of limited-means offense. Almost by definition limited to the number of volunteer military-aged combatants you can rustle up... and keep together long enough to be effective. A number that is going to be significantly less than the larger community-wide membership (all backgrounds, genders, ages) found in a church's membership.

A militia is merely a voluntary Action Cell organized to provide temporary armed response to limited eventualities.

A church group is a voluntary Community Association designed to provide years of consensus response to virtually any eventuality.

A large enough church group is perfectly capable of generating its own militia. But a militia is typically incapable of generating its own community.

-------------------------

With regards to the question of veterans making better militia material? Yeah, sure. In the event of a come-as-you-are party, people who've previously served in a hierarchical organization (military, police, first responders, workers union, etc.) are going to bring more to the table (and quicker) than those who never did.

Because their learning curve is shorter for self-organizing, planning, re-training, and executing operations. Regardless of technical experience (however dated), they already understand how the game is best played. Everything after that is a function of how much time they have to knock the rust off and sharpen the old edge. Or pick up new skills. Or refresh old ones.

If you decided to hold a pickup touch football game in the middle of some big community cookout/block party... which team would you bet on:

1. A bunch of randomly picked adults/teens without ball playing experience? Or...

2. A self-organized pickup team of former high school/college ball players?

That said, you could eventually bring the non-player team into pretty good form with enough physical conditioning, practice time, and good coaching. Especially if the former school players helped out in that training... and integrated themselves amongst the ranks of the inexperienced.

Militias can range from abysmal to superb. That's a function of motivation, experience, leadership, and dedication. As well as basic human material. Some militia groups are little more than social clubs. Some are dysfunctionally dangerous groups of armed & dressed-up buffoons. Some are actually effective small units (especially if they are heavily weighted with bona fide prior combat types).

Given time, resources, and structure, any militia can be professionalized and trained to an acceptable level of competence. From zeroes to heroes, just as long as they can stay together and improve upon prior successes. That was the very raison d'être for the job I did in the military. Raising, organizing, equipping, training, and leading surrogate indigenous forces to conduct combat operations. Something that has worked swimmingly well in several major wars conducted by the USA.

At my last swing at bat doing that job... we fielded ~8000 armed Iraqi SOF pipe-hitters, who were as good in a gun fight as anyone on the planet. Very few of whom had prior military experience (or had even fired a gun) before joining. They were a form of militia who became gradually professionalized and increasingly lethal on the battlefield. Eventually becoming the the very best combatants on that chess board.

Before that, I was doing the same with Afghan tribesmen.

Armed militia who served as coalition allies or paid mercenaries for US interests. Most of whom had never served a day in anyone's formal military. But all of whom were raised from birth as tribal fighters. Not unlike the warriors of any North American Indian tribe... or the early Minutemen/Militia of 18th Century Colonial America.

So, yeah, if I need to go do something armed tonight, tomorrow, or in just a very few days... I hope my little band is comprised of mostly former 11Bs, 0311s, etc. with recent GWOT combat experience. Because we can get back into the groove quickly, conduct time-constrained rehearsals, SOPs, battle drills, mission planning... and be off to the races with better than average chances of success. Or at least not get ourselves wiped out due to stupidity and lack of experience. Because we already understand the basics, understand the game, and understand our roles.

But give me several weeks or months with a crop of fresh faced 15-45 year-old cherries... and I can eventually deliver you a pretty fair armed & well organized maneuver element. One that will deliver the mail, get better with every confidence target, and not cut & run at the first shot.

Militia effectiveness is almost entirely dependent upon their being well led & trained. Something lacking in many modern day examples. Which is actually nothing new in the military history of militias through the ages. Just something to be understood and planned around.

A local self-identified Militia Group could be anybody. Dangerously anybody... and highly subject to the problem of toxic and hidden small group dynamics. Like moving in to board with a strange family that you actually know little about.

A local Church Group is a broader organization that could be damn near everybody in a wider community. Easier to read, easier to develop consensus among, and easier to sway to common purposes. Those driven by universal need to protect families, community, and property. It provides a larger framework for accomplishment of community survival goals. Everything from raw labor and potential combatants to unique professional skills, local intelligence networking, and logistical support.

Best of both worlds would be a community supported local militia, perhaps initially recruited from the larger totality of a church membership (as well as its reliably vetted non-member neighbors).

As noted up-thread, there's hardly an overt "militia" in the land that isn't already infiltrated and collected on by law enforcement or intelligence agency circles. In some respects, treated exactly as the authorities treat any organized gang. Always watching to see if they can hem them up in some illegality that might stick in front of a grand jury.

Churches? A little bit less so. Churches tend to have influential local financial/power-broker membership. Community members unafraid to use lawyers. Some of them actually being lawyers. People tied together by both their faith and their long personal associations. And, in the case of a church congregation, a little more Constitutional protection extant than with self-declared militias.

During Unconventional Warfare training in places like Europe, I've encountered (and used to my benefit) both types of associations. Used organized church laity & clergy to accomplish certain things. Used long established (and extremely well vetted) WWII/Cold War veteran-comprised militias to accomplish other things.

Those militias were usually closed circles of folks who had known each other from wartime service, from growing up together, and from bringing in their sons & grandsons to continue the organization. You had to be long-standing local to join. And they
never advertised for membership nor showed their existence in public. Tribal Warrior Societies existing within larger Community Tribes.

Saw the same thing over in the Balkans after the 90s wars. Veteran Groups (militias) were the power groups behind many communities. In some cases, to the betterment of the local populace. In other cases, they'd just become militarily organized mafia... and ran everything in the background (including local government) as a criminal enterprise.

Interesting topic.
Excellent thoughts. Thank you very much for taking the time to post these statements.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top