We have only a few options when it comes to organizing together right now. We have effectively two "main" political parties, but neither of them in their current state are representing us. We need to collectively make a decision on how to approach these parties and how we wish to represent ourselves in the future if we wish to make ourselves heard loudly instead of being drowned out by manufactured choice and fake consent. The options I can immediately see are: Making a New Party, Party Conversion, No Party (Establish as Movement), and Do Nothing. YOU DECIDE THE PATH TAKEN, though actions and through inaction. Below are pros/cons that I could think of. If you cannot DECIDE, then spell out what you need, or suggest a better idea that will result in a DECISION. Making a New Party: * (+) Clear separation and control of our message, financing, etc versus the establishment in existing parties (+) * (+) Potential to consume and overtake a party entirely in time (Uniparty has idea and leadership stagnation) * (+) Removes *some* methods of cheating if the new party becomes large enough * (-) Semi-immediate need for charismatic leaders (household names are not made overnight) * (-) Financing will be difficult without a well-vetted message, set of ideas, and detailed plans to accomplish them within our political system. * (-) Requires a LOT of trust, integrity, and scrutiny in those who want to step up to the plate * (-) Uniparty will do everything in their power to make the New Party appear to be irrational, radicalized, fringe, racist, or any other adjective that results in PARTY BAD programming. Forward-facing representatives will need to be on the ball to rationally counter this noise, articulate what we want to accomplish and see in a better America, and not give any ammo that could be used to tear the movement apart (including themselves). Party Conversion: * (+) Existing party is a recognized brand, carrying over brand loyalists as long as the name remains the same * (+) Brand adopting/stealing (what Donald performed in 2016) can be done if you end up rising to the top (this will be more difficult now, but still viable with charisma). * (+) Current leadership in both parties is stagnant; they are having trouble finding loyalist leaders who are also electable. * (-) Establishment is directly in control of the party bureaucracy. All major owners over the process (party leaders, decision makers, accountants, etc) are selected carefully and they will do everything they can to maintain control (including allowing only themselves to "watch" the ballots). No Party (Establish as Movement) * (+) Clear separation and control of our message, financing, etc versus the establishment in existing parties * (-) Semi-immediate need for charismatic leaders (household names are not made overnight) * (-) Current "movement" efforts are hampered by media bombardments. Current media strategies are to take the poorest-communicating and most-radical of a group and make them the front page headlines. This needs to be changed, either by adopting spokesmen or * (-) Movements only change hostile leadership through force of will (e.g. running unpopular leaders out of town in a majority-owned town) Do Nothing * (+) We all get to be lazy bastards, fighting "good fights" in memespace. Cons: * (-) Uniparty maintains control, and we continue to live the rest of our lives in a two-tier justice system that will only get worse over time. Things that will happen no matter what we decide: * Anything we actively do gives an "excuse" to establishment for further cheating in favor of Uniparty. This should not be used as a basis for a decision. WE have to stop the cheating, and must recognize that they will do whatever is necessary for themselves to maintain control.