Indeed. If we had a more centrist or even libertarian leadership, TPTB would not have much power. They want the more extreme policies of both the left and right implemented in order to keep the populace powerless. Balance of power is the enemy of our enemy.

Came here to say libertarian.

Be careful even with libertarianism. Their ideas are great, but they, too, can be a funnel of our creative energies.

"If everyone just voted third party, we'd have our country back!"

It's tempting, but false. If Ron Paul had won the election, they would have shot him dead.

What's your basis for saying that if Ron Paul had won the election that he would be shot?

Kennedy. Lincoln.

I heard plenty of people say that about Trump, and even Obama lol

Well, they're both in the establishment. I think Trump is at the outer edge of it, and he is trying to force it into the right direction, but it's pretty clear that there are limits he has to work within (i.e. not throwing Hillary in jail because her blackmail file is too big)

even if they did, it would give way to a new wave of consciousness (imo)

In a sense, it has. Just the death of Kennedy has left a remarkable wrinkle in most people's thinking. Most people know something really bad happened when Kennedy died, and a part of our soul as a nation died with him.

I like it.

People mostly voted for trump not because of his ideals but because they find the left to be worse and visa versa. In the mean we fail to notice were pushing a dangerous agenda either way.

I've always said if you want to make a real difference vote third party.

Do you think the notion that 'a vote for third party is a wasted vote' is the result of inculcation? It seems silly and it really reared its head this election season. (Full disclosure, I went with Trump but that's because I think he's an outsider) Even though the two had the lowest favorability ratings of all time there was still such a push against voting third party by everyone.

~4% going third party? That's ridiculous when they were both so hated.

Definitely agree. It's too bad all the millions of people marching and rioting today didn't throw a ruckus when the third party candidates were getting almost only negative press or radio silence. Voting for the lesser of two evils, D vs R, is a dangerous boxed in mindset when another option is sitting right there out in the open.

What they need is a powerful candidate at their head, one who can draw a lot of attention on their own.

Sanders could've done it, he may have been able to outright win if he went third party, I mean, worst case, the outcome is the same as it is now. Ron Paul could if the entire media wasn't actively working against him...

Who would be a good third party candidate? Johnsons out, Stein's out...

Jesse Ventura

Whats POTUS?

President Of The United States.

I hate how that was used against Johnson. No one had heard of Aleppo before then. That shouldn't be the thing people bring up when they disagree with Johnson. I get that it's kind of a joke, not meant to argue here, but I just don't like how the MSM used that to completely destroy his campaign. And how he wasn't let into the debates. It should be obvious that this is all a show, but no one gives a shit.

Gary Johnson is a bloody dolt. Anyone paying attention to world news would know. Johnson was not paying attention. Instead of saying that he was not paying attention because [insert excuse], he went on to say "If the President does not know what's going on, he can't send the troops there."

That reply makes him a total bloody idiot. He could've said that he would "catch up" on whatever's going on with the Generals, CIA, DIA, etc. But no, he chose to flaunt ignorance and make it, and himself, a joke.

The MSM did not destroy his campaign. His ignorance and his responses did. He literally knows nothing. He can't even reply "who's your favourite foreign leader". Even if he does not know ANYONE he could've just said "I support 'MURICA and no one comes close to Reagan, to name a foreign leader would be to make America #2!". Instead, that daft dolt went to say "I am having an Aleppo moment".

I repeat, the MSM did not destroy Johnson's campaign. He destroyed it himself by being a total bloody idiot.

The MSM did not give him the light of day. They only gave him attention when it was to ask "do you think that you're a spoiler candidate?" or "do you really not know what Allepo is?" and other bullshit questions. They didn't take him seriously. He knew that the game was rigged, and all of the bullshit was driving him crazy, so I think he just said "fuck it" and just fucked around and made a fool out of himself. If the MSM treated me like that, I wasn't let in the debates despite overwhelming popular demand, and I had Gary's perspective, I would probably have done the same and just treated the MSM with as much disrespect as I received from them.

I think he was trying to be clever and shit when he would go "I'm having an Aleppo moment" and the foreign leader thing, but Gary is just not the kind of guy to be clever and shit. I still voted for him because the two party system is cancer, and any vote not for the two political parties was better than not voting.

I agree he did not handle basically anything in the right way during the election, but he didn't necessarily cause his own destruction. He may have been ill equipped to handle the MSM bashing and social media bashing, but he's alright. I think the election was just so batshit crazy itself, Gary started to not give a fuck. Before the Aleppo moment, he was actually doing pretty well and gaining a lot of support. Once he got MSM attention, however, he spiralled out of control.

He knew that the game was rigged, and all of the bullshit was driving him crazy, so I think he just said "fuck it" and just fucked around and made a fool out of himself.

Then he will be treated as a fool. But no, he "fucked around and made a fool out of himself" because he's a bloody fool. Does he even know that he's not campaigning for the MSM to vote for him, but the people?

overwhelming popular demand

No.

I think he was trying to be clever and shit when he would go "I'm having an Aleppo moment" and the foreign leader thing, but Gary is just not the kind of guy to be clever and shit.

Total disaster not "to be clever and shit".

Gary started to not give a fuck.

Then lose. This isn't the first time he's running. You're giving him way too much credit.

Before the Aleppo moment, he was actually doing pretty well and gaining a lot of support. Once he got MSM attention, however, he spiralled out of control.

Even according to you, he destroyed his own campaign.

No one from any country wants a dumbass to win an election. Especially if he's from a minor party, because larger and well established parties have many advisers that would help the politician. To be a 3rd party candidate, he has to know his stuff well enough to recite it both forwards and backwards. And if he really does not know shit, he has to have the EQ to bloody reframe the whole engagement instead of triggering the keyword and associating himself negatively. Gary Johnson is now referred to as "What is Aleppo?" He's done.

That's because they're highly unpopular. People talk about how unpopular Trump is, well, 3rd parties are even more unpopular.

To receive funding, they must get 5% of the vote.

The 5% is not in polls - polls are bloody worthless.

5% is in the actual election.

If you're going to get into the Diebold machine vote flipping, as well as checking the wrong guy when clicking on the screen, fine. But pointing out polls destroys your argument.

As mentioned earlier, polls are useless because not only can the results be skewed* even if there's no manipulation (poll who's more popular in a Dem/Rep-exclusive area), it is not **legally binding.

What is legally binding, however, is the result of the election. 3rd party candidates must pass the 5% threshold to get Federal funding.

Regarding the crappy source code and possible election fraud:

Courtroom Testimony on Rigged Voting Machines Hacking the Diebold Machine Voting Machine Fraud

Already addressed it here https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5pdiya/false_leftright_paradigm/dcsc2d9/

Using polls is useless. You don't even have a "case" if you use polls.

No it doesn't. It is mathematically impossible for a third party to gain any traction in an election using First Past the Post voting.

CPGGrey talks about this in his web series.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638&v=s7tWHJfhiyo

So what do we do, I completely agree, but this message has to make it to both /r/the_Donald and /r/politics and I'd be willing to bet 98% it will fall on deaf ears. This post needs more coverage and we need more ideas and how to coordinate.

Something else,

People are most happy when devided; it gives life a purpose. I don't know if i should pick the heroine or my health if you know what i mean...

That's because when everyone is divided, nobody is there to rise up against the government. Why do you think there's also so much of the sexist/feminist agenda? Dividing men/women.

The goal of the elite is division of the lower classes.

Both sides are the same, except for some wedge issues that keeps the nation divided. And in reality, the wedge issues don't really matter. They aren't going to take guns away (at least not without a systematic, escalating, paradigm that leaves taking guns as the only viable solution).

It is the powers that run both sides that is our enemy. They need us to be divided, because if we unite, we will unite against them.

introduced a ton of legislation in the past 8 years intending to limit access to gun and ammo.

I think this is the owners plan, to ultimately take guns away from people. Just because one side says they are more lenient on guns, doesn't mean they actually are. Both sides are the same. Reagan instituted some of the strictest gun legislation the country has seen.

They are going to take guns through a series of escalating circumstances like we see with these false flag gun operations. They will continue to tighten gun legislation, quietly, until one day we realize it's too late and guns are basically taken.

It's not that false. Conservatives want religion and traditional values to deal with problems like poverty and drug use. Liberals want and demand a huge oppressive bureaucracy to enforce equality.

These are fundamentally different visions, and one in particular is very violent. Sure, the two parties are a joke, and an oligarchy that prefers a third position between the two gold the real power.

But if that oligarchy disappeared, we'd have civil war. Because of the left and their aggression. And the oligarchy does lean towards the left.

Conservatives want religion and traditional values to deal with problems like poverty and drug use. Liberals want and demand a huge oppressive bureaucracy to enforce equality.

Neither of those things are true. Those are mostly negative stereotypes and very loose generalizations, fallacies, and guidelines.

People can be whatever they want. They're forced to define themselves by labels like left or right because Americans buy into the idea that everything is black or white.

Most of the issues partisans complain about are social issues that don't affect most people but they're easy to argue about and mostly ideologically driven. Real issues like war or finance are ignored while people fight over more irrelevant stuff.

I have liberal friends. They are in academia and government. They basically recognize they'll lose their jobs if the government loses power. They believe lies even when I point out cold hard facts to them. They literally classify information as fake or not simply according to whether it conforms to their worldview. They in particular are unwilling to accept any information that suggests a big government might have fakes or that there might be alternatives

In The Common Good, Noam Chomsky puts it like this:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

In Satanism and other occult circles, one of the most useful tools appears to be the Hegelian Dialectic. The idea is, that if you want people to do what you want, you have to present them with two extreme and opposite versions of what you want, whereby creating an illusion of choice. We are routinely presented with the choice between thesis and antithesis, but never receive either; we always end up with a synthesis of the two ideas.

I've noticed it is also taught in books about parenting as a useful tool to get your kids to eat their food or go to bed, etc. If you want them to put on their pajamas and go to bed but they refuse, you simply offer them the choice "do you want to wear the blue PJs tonight or the orange one?", and voila, as soon as they pick one, you have circumvented their decision if they want to go to bed at all.

Some call it the Hegelian dialectic. Brit David Icke, who has his own peculiar take on the elite conspiracy simply calls it "problem, solution, reaction..." where the elites first create a problem or crisis that enables them to introduce a solution that actually serves their own greater control and ability to exploit the masses that the public only goes along with because they are tricked into believing that the problem or crises is real rather than a completely staged and pre-arranged event engineered by their own government in order to re-direct their taxes away from services that benefit them into ones that will actually be used to oppress and exploit them even further.

I like the pendulum example: pulling it back (thesis), and releasing it causes it to reach an apex (antithesis) on the opposite side. Eventually it slows to a stop (synthesis).

Divide and conquer, it's simple- I've been saying it all along and nobody gets it

People just don't understandstand the strategies that are used against them. They have been conditioned to be polarized by television, print, and peers that share the same hatred as they do.

Turn the two parties into sports teams, make people identify with one side wholeheartedly. Divide and conquer.

I think the motion for only a third party is an invitation to "tea party"-esque infiltration. I think we either need to limit the spending for candidates, or equalize the coverage.

You are right I understand what you are saying, so who is the puppeteer is my question.

It's not the military industrial complex it's who has their money invested in the military industrial complex, It is the owners of the MSM. The puppeteer is the ultra rich who own the mega corporations, the media and us.

The Vatican. All roads lead to Rome, Rothschilds and all.

A better term for this is 'false dichotomy', its a well known informal fallacy, and a very important topic to bring awareness to, for sure. And it's completely baffling to me how two party systems are effective at duping and corralling electorates.

I do want to ask you, however, what it is that you see, on the economic dimension, beyond the left and the right. Either the economic power is distributed among individuals who undertake private enterprises, or it is concentrated in some central body. What other alternative is there?

The terms left and right are pretty conflated nowadays, as a lot of random associations get pilled on top of the original definitions.

In so far as left and right refer to differences on the economic dimension — where left represents central control of the economy, in whatever form that might take and right represents distributed control, private property, free enterprise, etc. — I believe they describe a dichotomy which is very real. Because how else can an economy be organized?

we could organize

if we got away

if we become more pragmatic in how the economy is managed

already your speech seems to be gravitating towards a community-oriented and centrally-organized paradigm, do you see what I mean? You can't really get away it. It's not even a matter of these ideas being charged with 'ideology' as you say, it's just a logical inevitability that any system is either centralized or distributed.

Spoken like someone awakened to the truth. Well done.

I'm convinced the "left-right" system for politics and the "heaven-hell" for morals are a way for TPTB to keep us thinking about the world around us two-dimensionally. If we were to conceptualize the world around us in three dimensions we may be able to build true respect and empathy among one another and take a step towards global consciousness.

The Vatican. All roads lead to Rome, Rothschilds and all.