Here's the challenge with disrupting militia plots: most militia dudes are Dunning-Kruger levels of incompetent, but not Dunning-Kruger levels of dangerous.

So the problem is that militia culture is wrapped up in this sort of virtue signalling nonstop. It's all around trying to project yourself as a leader, a military expert, a tactical master, based entirely on what you've read in Tom Clancy novels

So a militia might say things like, alright, here's the plan. We're gonna get 1000 guys, and we're gonna set up a barricade at each of the three entrances to the statehouse, and then we're gonna neutralize the security forces.

Super scary stuff! Just one problem.

Where are they gonna get 1000 guys? How are they going to implement a Command and Control structure for 1000 guys? What are they gonna make the barricades out of?

This requires a high-level of coordination and logistics support that they really just don't actually have the talent or network for. Let alone that the number of guys they claim is always a factor of 100 larger than the number of guys who actually guy.

But the practical realism of their plot doesn't detract from their intent, either.

So the problem of separating wheat from chaff is a problem is assessing competence and reach.

Jan 6 happened because a lot of guys did show up to guy.

But there was no unified C2, so the result was a lot of aimless people with no plan, and thank god for that.

Imagine if there was that level of coordination, though.

Scalability, followed by control, has always been the bottleneck for the white supremacist movements broadly. This is also the bottleneck to effective neutralization, because you have to not invest a lot of resources in stopping guys who have bad intentions but suck a lot.

So while the plan to "encircle the Capitol and kill democrats" is very scary, it is also very unrealistic.

A plan to build an RV bomb is much more realistic, and should represent the threat we should try to identify and isolate.