You know, I find the perspective on feds to be kind of humorous.

The assumption is that when feds infiltrate a movement they are always oppositionary to it. But what if you saw it as an opportunity to directly distribute your message through agencies by keeping your movement clean of the things they are looking for while continuously attracting their attention.

If you message is appealing and sensible, does it really matter why they came in the first place? And when they walk away because they didn't find the things they were looking for, they leave with your message and a new perspective on domestic politics.

In an environment that is as controlled as the US political sphere, wouldn't it make sense to get the feds on your side politically?

I wonder how ethnic Germans feel when Americans are continuously using a political movement from their country as a representation of something negative nearly a century later.

It's kind of ironic looking at it from a historical perspective because most of the things the US media and public education system criticizes about the Nazis was due to American influence. Eugenics, ethnic protectionalism, and probably ideas about economics in Nazi Germany all came from American politics, not the other way around. The USA had a eugenics policy before Nazi Germany even came to exist, prohibited race mixing, and the USA had banned all non-White immigration, something that wasn't reversed until 1965.

Americans go on and on about the horrors of Nazi Germany and use it to contrast everything they want to be seen as negative, but the historical reality was that Nazi Germany was just following in the USA's footsteps; which should tell you that the actual issues the USA had with Germany had nothing to do with those policies.

One of the things about group think is that if there is one visible dissenter in a group, people won't feel as compelled to conform with either the ideological enforcers of the group, the ones that harass people into compliance by pretending to be a moral authority, or what the majority of the group states or gives the impression is their position through silence.

You might not be able to dissent at all on mainstream social media, but you can basically everywhere else. All it realistically takes to break through group think on an issue is going to anonymous gatherings of people like bars, etc. and stating your perspective on the issues enough times that the illusion that everyone thinks what the tv says is broken and people don't feel peer pressured into a particular political ideology.

When you state your opinion people in this environment will feel pressure to not contradict you simply because that's how they've been socialized by authorities and terroristic intimidation campaigns done through the media. If you are the first person in a group to state your opinion on an issue, the rest of the group will feel pressure to conform to it. It does matter that you respond appropriately if a group think enforcer decides to heckle you and turn people against you by presenting themselves as a moral authority. If you walk away with your tail between your legs, people will learn from that and not state their actual opinions in anticipation of that result.

If you want to break group think mechanisms in an environment like the USA, you have to be strategic and go through the interaction in a way that you teach people it's safe to state their own opinions.