You might not be formally member of such groups, but if you are spreading their values and repeating their propaganda, you're working for them.

That would make you de facto member even if you're not de iure member.

e: and based on Paradox of Tolerance, shutting down communication with anti-system efforts might be the only way. You can't be tolerant to intolerance, you can't be democratic to anti-democracy, etc.

Mind underlying where I am spreading the values and propaganda of 'refreshed "neoconservative/nationalistic" right wing parties'? I would like to not do such a thing if possible.

I'm quite surprised that so many don't realize that there exists an entire category of people that are not radical, but do hold opinions on some reforms that should be taken, including the quote that started this conversation "our ineffectual administration".

I'm not saying you are. I'm saying that if someone says X and there's groups saying X than expecting that person to be part of that group is kinda normal and not some kind of character assassination.

Speaking of ineffectual administration - I think it might be hard for some people to grasp that any bureaucracy is going to look inefficient. The point of bureaucracy is to replace ad-hoc decision making with a repeatable, documented, audited and justifiable process. Ad-hoc "the dictator decides" is always going to be faster.

> if someone says X and there's groups saying X than expecting that person to be part of that group is kinda normal

Different groups can support the same policies for entirely different, and mutually exclusive reasons.