Oathkeepers has a very interesting, almost riveting, piece up on recent work to infiltrate violent protest organizations.  There is a lot of information on their methods and results.  My general comment is that these oathkeepers are very committed and this cost them a lot of time, money and sleep.  My hat is off to them.  I have more specific questions below.

Here is a snippet, and from this I hope you go on over to Oathkeepers to get the rest of the story.  Thanks to reader Blake for sending this my way.

The liberal socialists are primarily coming out of our higher education system. They are comprised of professors, students and under-employed graduates. They are primarily white with a roughly equal split between male/female. They are not militant. They are willing to conduct blockades, marches and sit-ins.

The communists are a much broader spectrum of society with a strong leaning towards immigration issues. The communists actively recruit from a wide pool of candidates, including liberal socialists, the LBGT community, the environmental activists and the anti-white racist groups (Black Lives Matter, La Raza, Islamic Fundamentalists, etc.). They have a significant number of minorities in their ranks and they are militant in their operations and planning. The communists encourage independent action of their members to assimilate members from groups like Black Lives Matter, La Raza and other less militant organizations like ANSWER Coalition. They have no ethical boundaries. To communists, the ends always justify the means. They will do everything that the liberal socialist do in order to protest an issue and always take it one step further. They are not inclined to conduct direct actions.

The anarchists are by far the most dangerous of these groups. They are organized like militias. They actively train and practice their operations. They have discipline and zero tolerance for weakness. They have a number of former military personnel providing expertise to enhance security, logistics and martial arts capabilities. The majority are physical fit, military age males. They are primarily white with few minority members. Their leadership tends to be either former military, a proven leader from the occupy movement or a highly educated alpha-male. They are far more capable than their recent activities would demonstrate. They have formed community defense organizations and are idolized for their willingness to take action from the other groups discussed above. They are however anarchists that despise communism as much as they despise capitalism. They see patriots and constitutionalists as their primary enemy. To them, everyone is a NAZI or a fascist unless they are an anarchist. There is no debate allowed on these issues, ever. They operate under various names, but the vast majority identify with the anti-fascist movement. With the election of President Trump, their membership has increased exponentially. There are at least 50,000 nationwide. They have been able to assimilate much of the “occupy” and “black-bloc” movements. Most of what these organizations accomplish are classified as direct actions. They will participate in a protest or a march, but they are not big fans of passive resistance.

Ideologically, I think I understand the first two groups very well.  It’s the third group that puzzles me.  I don’t understand anarchists, so maybe in the comments section someone can explain them to me.

Let’s me clear and not whitewash this.  True anarchy isn’t something this group of “anarchists” has ever seen.  No sugar coating, anarchy is going without an electrical power grid – forever.  It’s going without food delivery, it’s going without medical care, it’s having no potable sources of water.

If there is anarchy, that means that workers cannot get to the power stations to generate electricity because the roads have all been torn up and there are thieves and robbers and shooters on the roads everywhere, at least until the ammunition runs out.  If there is anarchy, petrol cannot get to stations and so there is no means to get workers to the hospitals.  You go without medical care – forever.  It means that you had better have a means to remove turbidity from the water and enough chlorine that you can decontaminate it after filtering.  And it means that you will need to ensconce near a water source.

You will need to find your own food sources, and soon enough the deer, feral hogs and black bears will have been culled or gone into hiding.  Sooner or later the survivors will be hunting dogs to eat.  So I think we’ve painted the picture well enough.

Where do these “anarchists” come from?  Is this a group of FPS gamers who think the world is really like that, but who decided that they would be inconsistent with their worldview and ride buses or aircraft to their staging location for their riots?  How will they riot when there is no more fuel for travel?  Where do they eat, the local restaurants?  Do they realize that if they are successful, there will be more places to eat like that?

Seriously.  It occurs to me that they cannot have a consistent or well-crafted world view, and they cannot have peered into the future to see an end state for their rioting.  What do they want?  What are they after?  What is the end state for them?

I do not understand the anarchists.