People are so busy hating each other, they do not notice those behind the curtain controlling the leaders of both sides through bribery and blackmail.
In order to take on the "powers that be" the majority of everyone who are not in the 1% need to unite in common cause against their oppressors.
When people start to break through and challenge traditional narratives, soft and hard core censorship tactics are applied. People on the promoted side of the debate often blindly accept immoral censorship because their side is doing the censoring.
Conversely, when you bring people together for a common cause the have real conversations. They can thus better recognize the lies of the elite. Then they can form outside the box solutions that would terrify global corporate interests (many of which you will find on this page).
Often crises will be taken advantage of or intentionally created to bring about the changes the elite want as "temporary measures."
That is how you go "just 2 weeks to flatten the curve" to full blown violations of the Nuremburg code and well-recognized principles of informed consent in less than two years.
By adopting the 1984 No More process-based agenda, elites can never get away with stuff behind the people's backs again.
The cornerstone "People's Veto" will give people the final vote on EVERYTHING they try to slip in the back door.
The best way to fail at political change is to do whatever everyone has done for hundreds of years - policy based movements.
Now at first it seems logical. People care about issues, particularly ones that affect them personally.
The problem is that no one is going to agree on most important political issues. And, they are not going to agree with which issues are most important.
If you want to form a party based on abortion, immigration, taxation policy, etc. you are likely going to alienate roughly half the population right at the start. The more issues you take on, the more people you alienate.
Because this is what has been done, people find themselves usually in one of a couple major parties which they might have significant disagreements. But, they stick with it because they fear the opposite party that supports a position on an issue that they find particularly unacceptable.
Because of the way the process is structured, people thus find themselves voting for the lesser of two evils each election cycle, and often being miserable with whoever they are voting for.
What if we changed the process so that allowed you to better express your political will without having buyer's remorse about the choices?
For example, if you give everyone a vote on every bill passed by a legislature, the "people's veto" that is not a left or right issue.
It is something theoretically everyone but those who rely on the corrupt system can agree with.
The 1984 No More Agenda was crafted with this in mind.
Building a coalition of a super majority to mitigate the normal set of issues that destroy a political movements.
Pre-emptive Legal Challenges
This prevents people from having to risk incarceration to challenge unlawful legislation in front a potentially corrupt or bribed judge.
Open Source Voting
Ordered Choice Voting
Proportional Voting
The Citizen's Legislature
This provision ensures nothing is slipped past citizens, and legislators cannot just be bribed or blackmailed to pass corporate welfare handouts and other such bad legislation.
The Citizen's Line Item Veto
Automatic Sunset Provisions
By placing a limit on legislative activity, the code will not become the sprawling, unmanageable mess that it is in nearly every country in the world.