We see a lot of LEFT vs RIGHT discussions every day. I've been called both of those things within the same thread before. We know that in the United States we essentially have a two party system. Either a Democrat or a Republican is going to win. They shape our world based upon false dichotomies that you either support one of those or the other. In reality, no two people think exactly the same way. Yet when people with thoughts that are different try to form a party to fight such movements there is virtually no chance. In fact in the U.S. the system is very rigged and becoming increasingly rigged to stop anyone outside of these two parties from standing a chance.

They have turned elections and many other aspects of our lives into a sporting event of Home vs Visitor, and they take it further and make you think your fellow citizens that think different things than you are the bad guys. So the "adult" version of cops and robbers, empire vs rebellion, etc is Left vs Right, or Democrat vs Republican.

It is a false dichotomy. Yet it is a false dichotomy that seemingly controls our world. In other countries similar things are going on with different party names.

So if you have other ideas, and you want to stand a chance at making a difference, how do you do it? Well one way is to try to fight from within one of those two parties.

I was moved by a medical doctor turned congressman by the name of Ron Paul. Many of you likely know him, or at least know of him. It was through him that I first encountered the Libertarian ideology. I'll admit the first time I heard him I thought he was nuts, as that is how I'd been conditioned. He was saying things that did not fit with what I had been taught in school all of my life. There is no way that could work, it is insane! Yet I am fortunate in that I don't mind doing research myself. So I researched these insane things. I ended up deciding they were not insane at all, but were actually quite intelligent. I kept following the progress of Ron Paul and I noticed he was VERY consistent for decades about what he stood for. He was one of those extremely rare things. He was an honest politician. That seems like an oxymoron, as it usually is. It was not an oxymoron when applied to Dr. Paul.

In 1988 he ran for president on the Libertarian ticket. It didn't even make a blip.

He was later elected as a Republican Congressman. Did he stop being a Libertarian? No.

In 2008 he ran for president as a Republican. I went out and voted for him and became a delegate. I didn't stick with it very far as it was all new to me. I went to the first couple of events.

In 2012 he ran for president again as a Republican. I became a delegate again. This time I met twice a week with other Ron Paul supporters and we quizzed each other on Robert's Rules, we discussed Libertarian ideas, freedom, fiscal responsibility, socially liberal, concepts. We made game plans. We were very organized as we knew we were fighting an entrenched system. Though we were fighting from within.

I went all the way up thru state this time. There is only the national convention after this and I'd already removed myself from consideration from that as I couldn't make the trip, and I threw my support behind other people I'd come to know in the movement.

In a world of false dichotomies where do people that want to make changes but do not fit into the stereotypes and generalizations about one of those two parties go?

Well in the past they tried starting their own parties, but it is rigged against that. If the public does not get to hear these alternatives in debates then they stand no chance.

So the battle moved to fighting from within. That is what we were doing...

A View From The Inside

I witnessed over time that there was no ONE Republican ideology. There are factions vying for control from within the Republican party. During the 2012 election it was clear that the Neo-Conservatives who seized power during the Bush/Cheney election cycle were in power. Another faction was what you could call the Traditionalists. They were raised Republican, and voted Republican their entire life. They might be very old people. They voted straight party line. They often were the most out of touch with what was actually going on in the party as that was not their priority. Their priority was to stick to tradition. Thus, many of them did not engage much in trying to steer the direction. They were simply the "all Democrats suck!" traditionalists. There were exceptions, but they were not that common.
There was also the faction that their primary focus was PRO-LIFE. Abortion is the only issue that seemed to matter to them.
There was also the faction that viewed Religion and Christianity being the most important thing.
There was the faction that was heavy on military and military intervention. Call them the Pro-War faction.
Then there was us. The Libertarians in GOP clothing. We knew they wouldn't let our party stand a chance so like Ron Paul we decided to try to make change from within one of the parties that stood a chance.

The interesting thing from within is the power struggles of the factions within these major parties as I've gathered information that similar structures exist within the Democratic party as well. It only makes sense that they would due to how the system is rigged.

We witnessed the entrenched power IGNORE their own rules when it was convenient, and ENFORCE them when it was convenient. The Ron Paul movement was actually HIGHLY effective in 2012. Without them breaking their own rules frequently and doing underhanded things it is very likely Ron Paul would have actually won. They censored him on the news, and they tried to censor him within the party, but we were too big, and too organized in 2012.

We knew the issues better than any other faction, and we could debate them from a point of intelligence, and reason. We were prepared to openly discuss any topic. They tried engaging with us that way early on but it usually didn't turn out very well for them as it became obvious how much more we knew about the topics than they did, and how prepared we were to debate such things. So instead they attempted to silence, and marginalize us.

I remember at the State Convention in Colorado that some fliers were put on Delegate seats for some groups indicating who they should support. Later on someone came by and started picking those up and placing counterfeit versions in place with different names that had nothing to do with the group that made the flyer. Some of this was noticed and rectified before it was too late, but not all of it. The damage was done. This was the shady type of things that would go on.

I didn't go to nationals but I watched it closely and what I saw in that ended my interest in attempting to fight from within. There was a vote that was called that would severely limit GRASS ROOTS movements and was geared to make sure something like this Ron Paul movement did not make this much progress in the future. The vote was called and it was one that needed a 2/3rds majority. It was very clear when the votes were shouted that it was not obviously one way or the other. The rules would dictate for that type of vote a show of hands and people walking around accurately counting them. They did not do this. In fact they said the "Ayes have it, motion passes". This may seem somewhat normal, but someone happened to be videoing the teleprompter with their phone during this entire process. "The ayes have it, motion passses" was on the teleprompter before the vote had even been called or ended.

Some other observations

Some of you that have read what I write may have seen that I really do not like hypocrisy. I am fine with a well reasoned argument, but I do not like hypocrisy. This is not a new thing.

I would often debate with people that were supposedly Pro-Life, that were also endorsing one of the Pro-War people.

It would go something kind of like this:
ME: "Where do you stand?"
THEM: "I am Pro-Life, we need to stop killing the babies."
ME: "Okay, fair enough, I am Pro-Choice but I respect your right to make your own decisions."
THEM: "You are pro-choice? So you think it is okay to kill babies?"
ME: "No, but I do not necessarily believe life begins at conception. From a scientific perspective if you wish to call that life then there is cellular life in the egg and the sperm before conception. For me what matters is when they are conscious. When do they become self aware? That is what we need to find out before I say we are killing someone."
THEM: "I don't see how you can say that."
ME: "That's okay, like I said I respect your views. Who do you endorse?"
THEM: "I'm supporting Gingrich."
ME: "You know he is pro-war, and military intervention?"
THEM: "We need to stop the terrorists, and we need to protect our country, and look at the horrible things those places are doing to their own people."
ME: "You do realize a lot of innocent people are being killed by these actions?"
THEM: "Collateral damage, it's for the greater good."
ME: "I thought you said you were Pro-Life?"

NOTE: I don't remember whom it was they actually endorsed. I said Newt Gingrich just as an example, and actually by then he was pretty much out of the picture.

I agree with everything in that post except for the Guns part. Guns are a tool. They don't kill people. People do. They can also save people from being killed. There are many other tools we can kill people with as well. Banning tools never works.

Democratic Convention

I was very politically tuned in that year. I knew people in the DNC that I spoke to. The rule that passed via teleprompter in the Republican National Convention that eviscerated the GRASS ROOTS chances in the future, also had a similar movement happen in a similar way within the Democratic party.

I've been telling people for years that the system is so rigged you are picking from two choices that are force fed to you as your ONLY choices, and they typically hype up the animosity so much before them that it becomes more like a wrestling match, or sporting event where people are ROOTING for one side and heckling the other.

In the end they are controlled by the same entrenched special interests, corporations, bankers, etc that are always there. The media is their tool for limiting whom you can know about. If you don't get to hear a person with better ideas actually speak then "Of course he has no chance".

You hear the media telling you certain people are "unelectable" early in the process. They are already then and there deciding who you can and cannot vote for. They are only unelectable because they are censored by the media.