The documentary Sir No Sir outlines how just a handful of people can overturn something as big as a war. It doesn't take organizing, it doesn't take a mass of people to all yell the same slogan for their leader or even for their idealizations, it takes a handful of enlisted/deserters to do real change, and sometimes in certain organizations like the officers it only takes a couple, all else is susceptible to manipulation and controlled opposition. Let me utter some phrases that make the sheeple moniker very understandable:
heard mentality, group think, occupy wallstreet.

Mob mentality has been studied for a very long time. The question is: can you adapt that to work on a handful of people, strangers even that are all in the same situation and have the conviction to say "No thank you, I'd rather die behind the chemical sheds" look at the GI movement and how many it took to "support" those few individuals, it wasn't the herd that made it happen, it wasn't the masses dropping flyers and putting themselves into the shepards hands to be portrayed as senseless masses, it was the handful of Eve's saying No, I won't, in spite of the multitudes people who had no skin in the game.

Real conviction isn't found in a group, in a group you find identification through compromise of your convictions, you lose your identity in order to conform, you sell your self for the approval of everyone, and so then real change happens from within, hence why the axiom of change yourself first, physicians heal yourself first is still true and will never be overturned into "conform". Why is that a point, that conformity was sold to the public, why not mention this along side

,
Why not mention how classism was never the problem in independence times america, why the people were all happy to band behind "no more kings" but not behind "no more hierarchy ". Even wallstreet failed at addressing the timeless war of class and focused entirely on the perceived controllers, but not on the structures that allow these controllers to manifest in the first place.
Yes, grouping people is polarizing and generalizing, and ultimately alienating the individuals from joining you on the same ground,yes ok, thats one point, but that doesn't mean that groups are what creates change, groups are always stupid, indifferent, us vs them, easy to control, easy to spook and impress, endlessly more predictable and susceptible to the tactics which have been explored for a long time.
How easy is it to force/coerce a handful of individuals as opposed to a multitude? One gets spooked all get spooked, but real change comes from conviction and that leads to connection to actual real solidarity, it starts in your family, in your friends and even your coworkers, not in your neighborhood, not in your town halls, there you are targets of the mechanism of peers, of "we are all for this, we are all against this".