A mole infiltrated the highest ranks of American militias

Perceptions of U.S. militias

• Some see many militias as mostly LARPing: middle‑aged gun enthusiasts in “tacticool” gear, loosely organized, often incompetent, more social club than effective paramilitary.
• Others argue they are dangerous: they fantasize about or plan political violence, overlap with white nationalism, and have already been linked to bombings, shootings, and January 6.
• Several note that the “powder keg” risk is the combination of guns, ideology, and a hoped‑for trigger (e.g., “race war”), even if most members never act.

Journalism, sourcing, and requests for comment

• Multiple comments discuss whether giving subjects only hours to respond (sometimes 1–2 hours) is ethical; some call it bad journalism, others say deadlines and breaking news justify it.
• There’s debate over media bias: some think outlets exaggerate militia threats; others argue law enforcement and media have underplayed right‑wing extremism for decades.

Mole’s anonymity and credibility

• Some are puzzled that the mole is anonymous despite detailed identifying facts; others reply that limiting broad public identification still reduces risk even if insiders can deduce who he is.
• Skeptics question his backstory and mental stability and suggest his outreach was easy to dismiss among many crank tips.
• Supporters emphasize that the journalist says they verified chats, recordings, and corroborating sources, and that ProPublica is generally viewed as serious investigative journalism (though that is contested in the thread).

Militias, law enforcement, and extremism

• Several report or highlight close ties between militias and local law enforcement and some politicians; examples include officers in militias, providing training, or sharing extremist rhetoric.
• The “Black squad” anecdote (a unit focused on Black suspects) is discussed as evidence of systemic racism; some see it as pragmatically using community knowledge, others as clearly discriminatory.

How dangerous / competent are militias?

• One camp: they’re mostly disorganized, poorly trained “gravy seals,” unlikely to achieve large‑scale goals; serious threats come more from cartels or foreign terrorists.
• Another: low‑competence actors with modern weapons can still do real damage (power stations, drones, asymmetric attacks); dismissing them is risky.

Prepping, bug‑out bags, and societal collapse

• The article’s bug‑out‑bag description triggers a long sub‑thread on disaster preparedness.
• Many endorse having go‑bags and weeks to months of supplies for fires, earthquakes, or grid failures; some share direct evacuation experiences.
• Several argue preparing for full “societal collapse” is largely futile or even counterproductive; others maintain substantial stockpiles anyway, emphasizing that most prep is also useful for mundane disasters.
• There’s debate over whether being well‑stocked in a true collapse makes you safer or just a target.

January 6th, political violence, and double standards

• Some say journalists and the public underreacted to Jan 6, treating it as “blowing off steam” despite clear evidence of advance planning by organized groups.
• Others insist it was a riot, not a serious attempt to topple the republic, and accuse opponents of weaponizing the term “insurrection” for partisan gain.
• Comparisons are drawn to left‑wing unrest (BLM riots, CHAZ/CHOP) and to Mexican cartels; commenters argue over what counts as “terrorism” and whether focus on right‑wing militias ignores larger sources of violence.

Media ecosystem and radicalization

• Several note “normalcy bias” and a widespread belief that “it can’t happen here,” which leads societies to dismiss early warning signs.
• Others point to social media “outrage machines” and algorithms as drivers of self‑radicalization, especially among isolated men, and suggest this may fuel more lone‑wolf violence than organized militias.