[SFP] All You Fascists Bound To Lose

Day 3,230, 15:24 • Published in USA USA • by Goddess Dilvany




Rebellion in a Revolution

"Once upon a time, I was trusted with the fate of the eUSA. Some of you may even remember such an era. I sought to change the way we look at foreign policy, media, and of course - war. I don't believe in the endorsement of the status quo. I don't believe in suppressing change. I believe in WAR and CHANGE."

I believe in rationality and change. As any good revolutionary you need to be able to learn and adapt. I am sure if you follow me you would see me grow and adapt. Many of my fellow party members do this to a varying degrees. What makes the RC powerful is that we accept all comers. Is the SFP really status quo? Lets come back to this.

"Back in 'the old days', the SFP was a fringe party, a distant 6th at best. Obviously I returned to a time period which sees the SFP as a top 5 party. The SFP even rose to 2nd place, only to drift down into 3rd. Why is the SFP, formerly of second place, sliding down? What has arrested its growth? After spending more than 40 days and 40 nights in the SFP, I have some thoughts."

Yes, tell us about the old days. Drop from 2nd to 3rd is not inherently bad. If people disagree with us or like other parties better then there will be less gain. But what is the solution? America isn't Great! Make America Great Again!

"I have some suggestions."

I have some opinions

"I'm told the modern SFP doesn't allow anything forbidden by its forum constitution."

We prefer to have a set of rules to prevent despotism. The will of one man is not permitted it must be discussed and allow good ideas to surface.

"I'm told the modern SFP must admit anyone even known traitors."

Traitors? Oh you mean like this one

"I'm told the modern SFP only permits opinions which are anti-Pfeiffer and anti-eUSAforums."

On a side note I want you to explain how my last article is not a fair depiction of Pfeiffer. That is like saying I don't understand why scientists are presenting reasons for disagreeing with creationism. Pfeiffer, your best friend is the main counter to all of our proposals. He is the one person pushing and wiping votes to keep the blacklists intact. We are happy to debate ideas, but Pfeiffer paints us as a bunch of close minded idiots, because that is what keeps his whole show going. The SFP the actual people who believe in liberty and freedom are the bad guys and the establishment are the true revolutionaries. Lets engage in the revolutionary action of tying our self to the establishment's forum. I am ready to change my mind lets discuss and present ideas.

"I'm told the modern SFP frowns on collaboration with the USWP, AMP, and Federalists."

We are willing to help them and work with them. We are just not going to serve them. Many times it is hard to work with anyone because they refuse to give us a seat at the table.

"I'm told everything associated with the eUSAforums is elitist and evil."

There is no such thing as evil. I mean it is not entirely elitist, but it is primarily used by the more elite members of society. Most people don't seem to have an account until they get elected to congress.

"The SFP has become the very bureaucracy of elitism it claims to despise. This party is squandering its top 5 potential, but not all hope is lost. This party needs a facelift, a new brand. It needs its own internal rebellion, which is both ironic and fitting. A truly revolutionary party should not be content with the anchors and shackles of the past. It should seek to grow and evolve, faster and more significantly than other political parties."

Lets throw off the shackles of slavery for wage slavery yeah!

That is all you are really saying. So if we are the beacon of evil internal establishment that is untouchable despite the fact that we allow democratic primary, have an open leadership program and have some of the best MU assistance; Yep, we are establishment backroom cigar smokers.



Cerb thinks he is entitled to power because he is cerb. He cares nothing of the SFP he only wants to promote himself. So willing to carry the slanderous torch of our enemies constantly looking for opportunities to troll us and throw shade. Then when he gets it dished back cries and complains that this is not an echo chamber. He has done little work to win over the SFP, but expects our obedience.

The truth is that Cerb would of done anything to win the SFP Chairman position. It does not matter if Tom actually would of won the position which it seems may be likely when you compound the evidence. Tom was more popular and we have been able to account for a lot of the votes since we know that members held off votes till the end. I am not saying that there wasn't irregularities in the election, but who knows? Cerb would of done or said anything because he feel entitled to our party.