I like some of what you are saying, but I would ask you to look at what you want your message to be, and how people are going to interpret it. Make it clearer.
What do you want people to do, specifically?
Who do you want to include and why?
Shouldn’t you incorporate leading by example, where possible? Isn’t that what leaders do?
What do you want to achieve?
It’s also about where the level of discussion is in general society. It’s found in all the major attempts by the media to engage people. In this video we see the failure of the media to report the #1 issue (financial inequality).
Based on all of this, any successful group through history has been formed around, first of all, practical goals which are achievable and which will actively support whatever works to benefit society in a rational way.
That’s why we are now seeing rational projects like the Bernie US election campaign, the Corbyn UK election campaign, and the Jacinda Ardern NZ election campaign (she is now NZ president!). These campaigns are progressive, pro-social values messages which decisively strike a line and offer a view of which values should be accepted and which should be rejected.
Our project is different because we don’t want to attract everyone with vague disinterest in the current system - our project is very different because we want to attract a concentrated pool of talent which we can work with effectively, as political activists for meritocracy. That’s how we can get to work - by cooperating for our specific shared goals.
So I don’t think we are about to cause a shift in public perception and ask for extreme actions like secession right now. But instead, meritocracy like everything else must come about with decency and order.
That’s my take on it, at least. I would start by leading by my example because that’s how it starts: if the idea has merit, it will survive in others.