The realities of bandwidth

The various do-good groups (environmental, justice, climate, etc.) would still appear to be easy targets of manipulation, IMO. You can do the same with ultra-nationalists of all stripes, but it’s a bit harder to put things at several removes. With the first set, the support may come from such a group in another country with strong backers, who are in turn being backed by an international group, who is funded by various NGOs and others, who in turn are being funded and controlled by yet others. NGOs are wonderful ways to isolate things, FYI.

Purely hypothetically, let’s say Inga believes passionately in her do-good cause. Bit of a natural leader, she gets selected for extra training, then participation in conferences and other leadership exercises that reinforce her beliefs, solidifies them, and expands on her natural leadership capabilities. Ingrid, on the other hand, is just as passionate as Inga but is less innocent, and it is clear she understands that peace and light may not be all that’s needed. She gets selected for other training, and then recommends a few others who also realize that sweetness and light may not be enough. Using local resources, they obtain and stockpile items that are not sweet, shall we say, that are available for those like them who have had the special training, or even by those who come in later and avoid all association with the group (it’s called deniability folks).

Other members of the group gather information related to the cause, from who’s building what and where to possible proposed legislation related to the do-good cause. All of this gets passed up the chain, where Inga and Ingrid both hear it and pass it along — up different chains. Light and dark. All hypothetical of course.

Technical means can tell you a great deal; but, to really know what’s going on, where the opportunities for psychological or other pushes are located, and other people-centric things are, you have to have HUMINT.