> But really we need a decentralized poal Online communication is good for maintaining *steady state* levels of existing support (sans large organized campaigns). But its not good for weeding out rats, or any real organization. Geopolitical organization based on radical news/communication/journalism allows an in-real-life bootstrap form of geographically *real* groups, instead of atomized individuals. Part of the problem is those who are of the same idealogical bent, or can be brought to it, are geographically scattered. The condensing phase of any movement or org is where the feds disrupt us. By skipping the disorganized-and-diffused step of movements that are normally have their root online, we can stop cold the political police and their disruption operations. You build the condenser and the diffuse-aggregation ('idealogical recruitment') stages to work in *parallel* for sociopolitical movements. As long as every group effort in any given area leads to more leads (recruitment) than it cost in time/money/gas, then its a win. And each group operates by saying to people approaching them online "heres the group for YOUR area. If you cant come to us, you can go to them instead." Minimize risk by strictly engaging in information spreading/education as the communists do (learn from our enemies). Also plays well to the middle, a group thats required to win at all. Online support is treated as tangent, that is, recruiting online should actually be rare. Local action drives online *support* and ephemeral campaigns. So lets say we do flyers. Someone online sees that, and wants to volunteer. Intake interview indicates he works at a place run by a business thats pro-DNC. We can perhaps get him to do veritas style stings. His volunteer position never touches our operations directly, which means as long as we have good vetting, we keep tight control over whos in the group and whos not, so no federal/DC/dnc brownshirts joining undercover, committing crimes, and then using their crimes to arrest leadership or smear the movement. The controllable risk here is who is recruited. Local level that makes it harder for manufactured online personalities to become hangers-on. And each group action like flyers, pamphlets, public awareness campaigns, etc, stimulates x amount of tangent volunteers, who, even if they're bad apples working to censor/shutdown groups, we're still insulated from. That gives us *reach* without *proximity*, which reduces *liability* because the legal system has been weaponized against political dissidents and dissident movements. And thats the gist. tl;dr version: Never accept online volunteers. If you do, they never volunteer directly with your group. Externalize risk by gathering volunteers who are not directly part of your group. The effect of this strategy is it has a *relatively* high impact psychologically on the public, versus a comparatively low cost/risk/liability. Patriot Front is doing something similar, and supposing they *aren't* a honeypot, then *this* style of operation is the *only* reason they haven't seen a broader shutdown. Tightly control recruitment, limited to localized handpicked people. Limit the amount of operations. Make them *highly* visible. Make them fast, in and out, before any state-run or police--assisted rioters can show up to shut you down, attack, or otherwise frame your group as lawless/violent/terrorists/etc.