Liberty can only be won by individuals, acting independently.
Liberty will not be won by a group. It will not be won by numbers. It will not be won by might. It will not be won through technology. It will not be won with money. Liberty is a birthright of individuals, and it can only be claimed individually.
The only thing that groups have done in regard to liberty throughout history is to take it away from individuals. You cannot "organize" a group to promote liberty. The mechanics of groups act against this objective. The programming of individuals raised in collectivist societies directly supports the anti-liberty mechanics inherent in groups.
The natural tendencies of groups can be overcome, but not by people who have been conditioned to collectivist group structures. This does not mean that such people cannot reclaim their birthright. It means they must seek it outside the "envelop" of culture and conditioning which encloses them (and upon which they have become dependent). In this matter, each individual is on his own it is an individual choice, decision, and action, which is not dependent upon others, nor upon a group. A support-group for liberty is a contradiction in terms ... and a contradiction of values.
In the conventional way of looking at things, the condition of political liberty divides human beings. It gives them an arena in which to individuate upon their own responsibility. This arena is a "political" arena. It is a "safe-zone" for individuals. It does not include a "safety net" for the consequences of individual choices, only the right to make such choices freely, upon an individual's judgment and responsibility. This political arena is composed of a recognition of appropriate boundaries between human beings. Securing those boundaries, individuals become free to live by their own choices, safe from the powers of groups.
As individuated human beings, they will vary. They will not be alike, nor homogenous. However, in regard to the arena of boundaries, itself their sovereignty and rights, and security of those boundaries they will share, as individuals, a universal common priority. Once those boundaries are secure, they will find that they share certain nonpolitical values with some individuals, and not with others. Upon the basis of shared nonpolitical values, they may choose to cluster, or not.
Since, under political liberty, groups have no power to enforce their values upon anyone, there is no way to enforce a "cluster" or society. Socializing, then, remains individual and voluntary. If some people form a cluster (for whatever social or economic purpose), the group exists by virtue of voluntary and therefore reversible choices of individuals. There is nothing binding in such groups, except a voluntary choice of a number of individuals to sustain a given group, if they so desire.
When I say that liberty "divides" people, I mean that it liberates them to make choices freely by their individual judgment, and therefore differently than their neighbors. In the matter of their boundaries (and hence their right to make their own choices for themselves, individually), they are united. In all other matters, they may unite (associate, gather, cluster, socialize) or not.
Thus, what is "divided" is not people's desire for likeminded fellows, but the enforced group, the subordination to groups, and the dependence upon groups. In the context of liberty, individuals not fearing enslavement are more willing to socialize and cluster, and to act out of benevolence and kindness to one another, than when they are bound by force (legally) to such groupings or such morals (or worse: when they are bound to self-sacrificing moral codes, such as altruism).
The particular and distinctive form of government which is appropriate to liberty has been described elsewhere. The road to get there, individually and not by group efforts, has also been described, sketchily, elsewhere. A fuller description of how to get there will not be presented beyond this still sketchy online series of articles.
It is not anyone's job, duty or obligation to convince or persuade anyone of the viability of liberty, nor of this path in particular. If they want liberty, you are free to provide direction. You are not "free" to make up their minds for them, especially not if they are unable/unwilling to do it on their own. If they do not want liberty (in this matter, do not believe what they say, only what they do), that is not your affair, no matter who they are in relationship to you. Respect their choice. You do not own other people, or control them, or possess responsibility for their choices. If you think you do, then liberty isn't your bag, either.
The liberty revolution will not occur through any kind of organized event or activity. Liberty will happen by displacement a coup d'etat that does not change masters, but leaves "l'etat" dissolved as individuals form a political bond of an entirely different form and composition: the bond of political liberty. Moreover, by the time of the "displacement," the bond of liberty will already have been formed. It will not "step into" the power vacuum. It will void the power vacuum. Liberty is different stuff.
Anyone who tries to "step into" the power vacuum left by the fall of domination government, will find that there's nothing "there" to step into. There is no anarchy, there is no transition, there is no continuation. Liberty displaces, replaces and discontinues all aspects of domination.
The timeline for creating liberty is immediate. The timeline for the disintegration of conventional, domination political structures is irrelevant. It already does not matter. To those who recognize that liberty is an individual birthright, it never did matter.