The solution I see is the *political and social equivalents* of insurgency and defeat in detail. Also lateral movement isn't just a term used for network security. It can also be applied to operational/institutional cultural security--which is why the marxists focused on the "march through the institutions" but thats another topic. Always learn from our enemies. Anyway this is gonna be a bit of a wall of text, so stick with me Masato. The political idea of a "flying fortress" and "ghost on the rampart" and a "self thrusting spear", or "flying dutchman offensive". Let me explain because these terms don't sound like they make any sense, like they're made up, because they are. The state relies on defense-in-depth at the political, social, and intelligence/federal level. NGOs. Media. Pseudo-militant elements like antifa and blm, and their corporate backer network. The works. For those following along, if you're not familiar with defense-in-depth, go read about it first before continuing. In ww2, the germans kept gaining ground against the allies but the victories cost them dearly. The allies were at one point using defense in depth. The germans would gain ground, but it was strategically unimportant wins, only lightly defended, or which didn't advance the cause. And the consequence was that they would exhaust their 1. momentum, 2. logistics, and 3. and morale. fighting pointless battles, when all the key victories were heavily defended. And from that we can see what works: We can't 'fight' politically or socially, or in any other capacity, directly, and win. If we win on the narrative or other fronts like politics, then chances are good they're easy victories that don't matter. And then our opponents can see where we're "concentrated" so to speak, and smash us with government resources and policies. So its useless. And you can't compete with them directly (going after the "heavily defended", such as starting a news network to compete with the core propaganda outlets). If you can't fight them where they're weak, and you can't fight them where they are strong, what can we do? We can make them *think* they are losing. We can *demoralize* their side so they have to waste resources shoring up their political 'defenses', protecting political capital they'd rather be spending. And herein comes the "flying dutchman" or "ghost in the ramparts." It's political theater: You can spook your enemy. Make them think they're losing street fights (just like they did to us). Dress up as their guys, and have your guys fight for the cameras. And then you leave before anyone makes a complaint. Edit the video to make it look likes the cops are on your side or refusing to protect antifa and their ilk. Spread it virally on the left. Blackpill them. Demoralize them. Even better do it in lefty cities, in such a fashion it makes it look like mayors and DAs are in revolt. If they arrest you illegally, you claim your people are already out because the DA is on your side. Claim the DA overcharged the "antifa" guys. Have your guys cosplaying as antifa even go on social media and claim the DA, police, and city all sided with the right. Spread rumors that leadership has abandoned them and sided with the the republicans, conservatives, GOP, etc--playing to their worst fears. These are the "ghosts" on the "ramparts" that the leftwing and all its footsoldiers tentatively guard. Spook em into running and thinking their political order is failing. Magnify the belief in washington DC leadership that the left base is abandoning them because they're not radical enough. This accelerates and amplifies washingtons overreach, and makes them look desperate, which emboldens the right. **Flying Fortress** The Flying Fortress or Self Thrusting Spear is a model that works in tandem with the ghost in the ramparts. The idea is simple in theory: You organize into a *tight knit* top down hierarchy of organizations, whos founders are the 'weld points' or contact points in the organization, but otherwise separate. All the organizations at an "ideologically localized" level run organizations that have a similar bent, but disagree on implementation, details, and ancillary ideas. This is camoflauge as it were, so they can't be hamstrung or politically or idealogically nailed down. But like a fortress, made of welded parts, they all move in the same **global** direction ideologically. Because it is a "strict" hierarchy, any organization can be quarantined or told, for the sake of the whole, to "Argue and disagree with", or break off from the whole. And the whole disowns it. Likewise, you can foster false controversy to manipulate media into giving free coverage, that media can't ignore, even where normally it would ignore individual organizations. If federal agencies attempt to use infiltrators to slander or frame or use lawfare to illegally suppress or shutdown an organization or leadership again, you can 'cut off the infected limb'. All the while in practice the organization is a "loose coalition", like a plane built out of scraps and pieces. And as the oppositions footsoldier orgs and mouthpieces are fighting political/social 'skirmishes' in the trenches below, against the ghosts in the ramparts, the flying fortress moves, subtly, undetected, above or below the radar, behind ever line of defense, skipping over their defense-in-detail. This creates the impression of a "groundswell" of support, and also at the same time does just that, as the appearance of success leads to the real thing. Essentially it is the idea of an *umbrella* organization. Only instead of an umbrella organization at the center, it is replaced with a centralizing and general *ideology*. And we elevate this ideology to the status *approaching* but not reaching, empty signfier, so that we cannot be split on the basis of beliefs. The loose collection of contacts "welds", who each are responsible for running their own groups and being self sufficient, in turn keeps their respective organizations or branches on the right track, so "wings and parts" don't go flying off as the fortress org moves along an ideological path toward its goals. The result is an organization that is hard to assail by the traditional methods: It cannot be politically dismembered by removing its leaders. It cannot be poisoned through guilt-by-association as was done with the proud boys. It cannot be taken down by going after its core umbrella org, because it has none. It is a "leaderless movement". it cannot be attacked on ideological grounds, because its ideology is pretense toward a hard and fast political goal, a pretense so thin striking at it is like striking at air. It is an attitude more than belief, a symbol more than an idea. I guess this all sounds like a bunch of fart huffing abstraction and high political philosophy. It doesn't get into the weeds of operations, logistics, or intelligence. But I was thinking for a long time, if our essential problem is our enemies are too well defended politically/socially/economically, and *any* move at all, that isn't doomed to fail, requires organization. Then we have to ask: What does that organization and the *next step* once that org is formed, look like? And I think it looks like what I wrote. To win, to assure victory, you have to know the enemy, and yourself, and make yourself unassailable *first*.