So recently it seems like there’s been a lot of talk about what we can actually DO to fight the SJW hordes and insane liberals. The other night some user started a thread about political parties. That’s what I want to talk about here, tonight. So Jow Forums up a chair and share your thoughts.
First, I should say that I think forming a political party is probably the most realistic option. That said, we need to actually look at this in a realistic way, as a problem we can solve. It’s not that hard to actually form a political party, but go to the link below and you’ll see just how many there actually are in the US. The question isn’t how do we form our own party, but how do we do it in a way that will actually attract people and make us into a political force?
>We nEED To ORGaniZE ouR OwN pArtY Yeah no. It's just a glow nigger fest
Owen Murphy
Before we can answer that, I think we should take a look at what possible demographics we might appeal to. Beware, napkin math incoming…
An easy place to start is our most obvious supporters. It’s hard to find exact numbers, but from what I can dig up it looks like Jow Forums gets about 11 million monthly visitors from the US. Let’s be generous and say 60% of them are Jow Forumsacks, that gives us 6.6M people. Again being generous, let’s say that 40% of them would seriously join a political party we formed – that’s 2.64M. We can also probably look at our 8ch bros as well, and from what I can tell they’ve had 13.8M total visits from June-Nov this year. I have (obviously incorrectly) assumed this is a completely different subset of people, and there are no duplicates between Jow Forums/8ch. Jow Forums is a popular board there, so let’s say 75% of those visits were to 8ch/pol/, which is 10.35M. I can’t tell if these represent completely unique visitors, but I’m assuming not so let’s halve the number and say there’s 5.12M unique visitors. Of these, we’ll apply the same 40%-would-join-a-party rule, which gets us to just over 2M people. That’s a total of 4.64 million people that would potentially join our party, in a nation of around 350 million.
Compare this with some of the numbers on the Wikipedia page I provided earlier – this puts us on about the same footing as the libertarian party. Known, but hardly an overwhelming political force, and my numbers were pretty generous. The bottom line is that to actually achieve something, any political party we form would have to have broader appeal to the masses – we can’t go full on 14/88 and expect to even get to 4M. We need to have a political party that espouses publicly the more palatable of our ideals – tough stance on immigration, reason and accountability, responsible spending, responsible government, return to morality and reversal of societal degeneration, etc. These are the kinds of things that broadly connect with people, and are where we could start, at least.
To do that then, we would actually need to draw up political and social goals, party guidelines and stances, something like a rough credo of what we stand for and believe – tough, true to our ideals, but not fucking natsoc-tier. Something where we could get people involved and then slowly, over time, move the party stance as more and more people join and we actually begin to accumulate political clout. We would need actual party leaders, a party structure, organization, and then we could hold our own primaries, etc.
All of this is completely within the realm of possibility. The thing that I can't figure out how to get around is money. It doesn't really take a lot of money to start a political organization, but to actually have that grow into something and become an institution takes a lot of money. Offices, staff, advertising, commercials, political advisors and strategists, etc. Obviously the party members themselves would pay some of the cost, but realistically we'd need donors. Rich, powerful donors who would be willing to give to the cause. I don't know who that might be...the hope is that they would reveal themselves when they were attracted to the party. What's the alternative? I'm not sure - full on cult or something I suppose, but I don't think that's the best way to start a political movement.
The other important thing really is the many disparate beliefs and ideologies of all the different people in the 'alt-right.' It's not even really accurate to lump them all together like that, but that's what the MSM has done and it's loosely stuck. But as far as I know, no one has tried to actually collect and codify all these beliefs into one structure that would be internally consistent, that everyone could live with. For example - some people think we should halt immigration altogether, some people think we should halt immigration and kick out everyone who isn't white, how do we find some middle ground where people like this can coexist in the same political group? How do we craft a message that would appeal to both of them, so that even though they may not agree on all the particulars, they will join an organization and fight together? I don't know anons...I'm open to suggestions.
Aaron Stewart
By the way here were some of my sources...
expanded ramblings dot com then search on Jow Forums
We should call ourselves the Bull Party as we cuck the neoliberal establishment
Levi Edwards
>The thing that I can't figure out how to get around is money. It doesn't really take a lot of money to start a political organization, but to actually have that grow into something and become an institution takes a lot of money. Offices, staff, advertising, commercials, political advisors and strategists, etc. Obviously the party members themselves would pay some of the cost, but realistically we'd need donors. Rich, powerful donors who would be willing to give to the cause.
I might be retarded but ill put in my two cents. I feel like your thinking is a bit old fashioned. I think trump one in part because of the internet. The MSM was against him, even FOX didn't support him originally. If the internet didn't exist and everyone was still watching cable news like 20 years ago, he would have lost. The MSM is dying right now, theyre losing viewers by the millions, people are turning to the internet for news. That includes independent news sources and commentators. This is why corporations have been trying to censor people online. They want to sanitize the internet and turn it into cable TV. Hillary Clinton lost despite having much larger corporate and MSM backing. I think it would be more intuitive to create a sort of internet politcal party or something like that. We already sorta kinda have that. Perhaps if we were more organized we would have a better chance, and less vulgar as well.
Idk mang.
Mason Bell
I kind of see what you're saying, but we lack the ability to affect change in the real world if we only have some sort of internet presence. We can't actually field candidates, we can't write policy, we arbitrate judicial decisions, we can only influence, and that subtly. I dunno either man, nobody seems to want to talk about it tonight.
Nathaniel Martin
>organizing No.
Look up "COINTELPRO."
Jaxson Young
I know what cointelpro is. What do you suggest otherwise then? We stay on the internet posting dank memes and bitching about hillary? At least when the country falls and civilization burns then we can say we never got caught by muh FBI doing nothing illegal.
Jaxson Richardson
maybe one day in your sad life you will realize that We the People have more power than the government
Austin Mitchell
Develop your cell IRL. Talk about it only with people that you know personally and trust fully.
The ship is already sinking, user.
Zachary Hernandez
>I kind of see what you're saying, but we lack the ability to affect change in the real world if we only have some sort of internet presence. We've been able to affect change in the real world here on Jow Forums. Weve done some crazy shit. We could put a name to ourselves. Maybe create a website or forum where people can sign up. we can list our ideas, policies, our other internet presences, list people we sponsor or approve of. I also like we could have a bull as our mascot or something. I dont see why we cant use the internet to organize people. We could organize meetings and demonstrations. We can even use Jow Forums and make a general thread here. We can make social media accounts as well. However we mat need a small group of people to run the show.
>We can't actually field candidates, we can't write policy, we arbitrate judicial decisions, we can only influence, and that subtly. This is an issue. We dont really have any figureheads or notable people. Dems and Repubs do. Maybe we can get individuals in our group to create an internet presence and gain followers. Intelligent people who we can support, spread them around on different internet platforms and run them. I can think of a few youtubers who could fit this description. We can have meetings with these individuals and have foot soldiers to campaign with them. Get funding through indiegogo or something.
However maybe our disorganization and anonymity is our actual strength.
