-4 votes

A POWERFUL voice needs to arise from the Center

Ron Paul never got more than 10% in the primaries.
Gary Johnson got less than 1% in the general.

We need a different approach to get our message out and garner mass appeal.
Vast sections of the population do not even know there are other choices and options.
Vast sections of the population have given up on ever changing politics or the direction that America is taking.
Over 90 million people didn't even bother to vote.

The Libertarian Party is not the answer - it has too much negative baggage.

Changing the Republican Party from within is not going to work - unless they get some serious competition with seriously different views from another meaningful source.
They will just change their election rules some more if they ever do get some significant internal competition. (Or co-opt the supposed leaders of a new movement into the Establishment - like they did with the Tea Party.)
I don't believe this route should be given up on - we should continue to try and kick the extremist neocons out / discredit them as much as we can from within the Party.

The Republicans agree with the Democrats on all policy except some differences on social policy. Goldman Sachs would like to keep it that way.
The leaders are even pro Obamacare, though they try and pretend not to be.

The mainstream media blackout on alternative viewpoints is not going to change.

The Republican Party needs to have some serious competition like the Whigs had from 1854.

We have to take the centre ground and focus primarily on the Independents and the young.
We can attract moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans as well.

We need to rephrase our message if we are ever to reach out to large swathes of the population.

My thoughts on rephrasing the message and getting it out.
http://ian56.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/a-powerful-voice-of-mode...

Your thoughts welcomed.
Especially if they have some practical strategy in order to better pursue our cause.
We do not go from the horrendous situation we have now to the ideal solution in one easy step.
We have to cultivate public opinion to be more on our side. Without that, we will not be able to change anything.

N.B. I have not mentioned Ron Paul anywhere in my article, only his main policies.
The general public have been brainwashed for over 20 years into thinking that Ron Paul is a kook.
Let's tell people about his policies first.
Mentioning Ron Paul is more likely to switch people off straight away. Let's try and get them to listen so that they might be persuaded first.

I also did not mention the word Liberty. The general population think they are already free.

I also did not use the phrases bring the troops home or End the Fed.
For the vast majority of people these are stage 3 plus ideas.
Let's try and get them past stage 1 first.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I have contacted these guys to see if they are willing to

support/consider these proposals.

They are putting in their own money into supporting Liberty candidates.

http://www.dailypaul.com/234430/meet-the-rich-texan-twentyso...

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

If the Establishment want to pretend there is a

left/right paradigm when both candidates and parties are Corporatists, we should try and use their own weight against them - that is what several of the martial arts do.

If they say they occupy the left and the right - there is only one position remaining - the center.

The Republicans say the Dems are communists.
The Dems say the Republicans are religious bigots and only support the 1%.
Both say the other party are extremists, both are correct - why disagree with them?
There is only one position remaining - being moderate.

Large numbers of the young think both main parties are extremist because of their warmongering. We are the voice of a moderate Foreign Policy - as per Jefferson.

The young also consider both parties extremist because of their support for the prohibition of drugs and the crackdown on harmless non violent drug users.

The Founders would certainly call us moderate and the 2 main parties extremist.

We need to go for the Independent vote and they consider themselves to be the center and moderates.
I don't mind going with that if it puts us in a better position to persuade.

We should mix that up with the fact that we are anti Corporatism, crony capitalism etc. But it is difficult to convey that message in 30 seconds, most people do not even know what that means.

So we have to grab their attention with something simpler to understand first and make it directly target "what's in it for me if I support you".
More wealth and prosperity for the vast majority of people is what's in it for them.

Being anti Corporatism is also being moderate. There are not too many supporters of Hitler or Mussolini in the United States.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

"...Especially if they have

"...Especially if they have some pragmatism...."

This is where I stopped reading...I understand your points, they are good ones, and appreciate the thought and effort required to express them, but many of us feel that embracing pragmatism and not standing stong on our principles, has, by incremental damage, chipped, chipped, chipped away at our nation. We believe that we live today in the land that pragmatism, as opposed to strict adherence to principles created.

You have touched upon the great rift in the freedom movement, and in society in general. Principles vs Pragmatism, a softball euphamism for embracing the lesser of two evils. And once you truly see and accept what pragmatism has wrought, you cannot unsee it and can no longer act in that manner. This standing strong on principles is the great strenght that I find so admirable in Ron Paul, and if he can do it for decades in that cesspool and not dirty his boots...well, so can I, in the realively safe environment of a family who supports me.

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

I give up no principles

I seek practical actions to start moving us closer and faster to where we want to go.
At the current rate we will still be nowhere in 4 years time.
We need to do something different to persuade great swathes of people.

We need to target the least brainwashed.

Ron Paul attracted a good deal of support from Independents.
He also attracted a good deal of support from young people.
Both of these are amongst the least brainwashed.
Independents are a bit more open to argument.
Young people do not get their news or current affairs from the TV - they haven't been brainwashed by the media (just their schooling).

I have reiterated that these are the priority groups for us to target in my article.

I said way back when in January, that Ron Paul should give up on persuading old GOP, they are far too brainwashed; and target more independents and the young.

He did spend a lot of his time campaigning on college campuses.
He got large audiences, but how many of them were new recruits or the unpersuaded? It is very difficult to tell. We know a substantial number travelled a fair distance to hear him speak.

I don't think the campaign did a good job on trying to sign up new activists for Ron Paul - they only tried to register new people as Republicans.
Did they even keep a record of people who attended to get out the vote on polling day?

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Then strategy, not pragatism...

Let's hold tight to our principles then, but put our efforts into what will succeed using strategy. I have watched this strategy being used by the enemies of liberty for decades.

Let us hold fast to our principles, but look for the weakest link, the most palatable change that people are happy to take in the liberty direction. Let us take apart tyranny and the nanny state one bite at a time in the locations where we have the best chance of succeeding.

What are some of the best actions we could take right now to advance liberty, that also have great chances to succeed?

http://riseforliberty.com/ For May 17 Money Bomb!

Yes strategy

What actions give us the best chance of reversing the current course and start moving in the right direction?

No sacrificing of principles are involved.
But we have to accept that it will take time to persuade public opinion to fully accept our case.

We are NOT winning.
98% of those who voted, voted for Goldman Sachs.

Some tiny gains have been made, e.g. in the legalization of pot.
But the Feds are fighting back against even this. Filing forfeiture papers for land used to grow marijuana in Oregon. No charges were filed, no crime had been committed. The Feds are still persecuting the owner though. You would think they had better things to do with their time.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

I think we're doing that already

We've had some real wins for Liberty. Look to NH and nullification. Look to Colorado and Washington to nullification of Drug Laws. Look to the gun laws in many states being repealed in our favor (Gun Freedom acts) Look to the many local and state positions we have now. Look to the wreckage that is the RNC.

Just keep pushing and be in it with patience. I told myself that I would hold off "doing anything" if I saw the Liberty movement advancing and I can happily say, I see that. It may not be by leaps and bounds but it is moving forward.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

The problem is: these days,

The problem is: these days, the most corporatist politicians in the status quo are considered centrist by the media. We need more solidarity between genuine activists rather than changing anyone's message. The message will mold itself once we are together, if it ever happens.

Exposing the corporatists...

Then we need several people working on identifying the corporatists and exposing their statements in the context of history. How these corporatists compare to the Nazi's or the other widely despised groups in the past. People with a background in history who can clearly show the public where their statements fall when compared to Washington, Jefferson and Franklin as well as Hitler, or George Jones.

Post these comparisons in the comment boards whenever these friends of tyranny try to spread their lies. Spread the ammo of truth through other channels so others who are fighting for our country's liberty can help spread the word.

The Daily Paul was a great resource for listing the Liberty candidates prior to the election. Perhaps we can also get a list of the corporatist and anti-liberty candidates listed as well.

http://riseforliberty.com/ For May 17 Money Bomb!

I like a lot of what you're saying

but we need to figure out how to sell it better. When you talk about cutting government spending, we all hear that a positive. But if you say 'cut government spending', half the country hears 'no healthcare/no education/no defense'. The hardest part is getting people to hear things as positive when they falsely believe them to be negative. The best thing about liberty is that it's not a system of trade-offs. We don't have to sacrifice security for liberty, or wealth for freedom. Quite the opposite. The free society is the peaceful society is the prosperous society.

I really like what you're going for here tho. I don't know what the answer is myself, but we won't find it without trying.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

"The best place for every decision"...

Let's try the tack of pointing people towards the idea of the right organization for each job rather than 'cutting' government spending. Let's use positive terms. It does little good to point out what is wrong unless at the same time, you point out the more attractive alternative. We must control our message.

We don't want 'no health care' although that is what the tyrannical enemies of liberty have succeeded in morphing our message for the undecided public into. We want the 'best health care' by putting the best people in charge of the decision making. That means individuals, doctors, educating the public about health and treatment, non-government health organizations and to some lesser degree, the local and state governments. The Constitution will guide us on the general outlines of the boundaries of responsibilities.

To follow with the health care concept a little more, of all the health insurance plans, medicare is widely despised among the health care community as the worst possible plan. Many doctors either refuse to take medicare patients or consider it to be part of their charity work. It is riddled with corruption, gives payments that do not cover the paperwork requirements and forces diagnostic and treatment options that are not in the patients best interests. Why would we let the people who have designed one of the worst existing health plans to control our total health care dollars now?

We don't want 'no education', we want parents to be educated on their role, incentivised and motivated to provide the bulk of education, then private organization and then smaller contributions by local and then state governments. The Federal Department of Education is just less effective with our education dollars. Why would we intentionally be inefficient with our education dollars?

Let's work on reshaping each piece of the Liberty puzzle into terms that are positive in expressing who the most effective and efficient people are to spend our dollars. Other than national defense, interstate contracts and sound money, there are very few other roles that the Federal government is well suited for to do the job effectively.

http://riseforliberty.com/ For May 17 Money Bomb!

I prefer to use the term "cutting government waste"

that can only be taken in a positive way.

And it is surely waste.

Once you start trying to move beyond about $1.5tn of cutting government waste the questions start getting harder to answer.

I'll argue about the first $1tn, then the next $500bn to start with and worry about making the case for the rest later.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Good Idea

Here's my take on getting the message out.

The masses seem to have a very short attention span, massaged into just the right form for MSM's presentation style. No one reading this falls into that category, of course.

Some tricks could be borrowed from MSM. It seems improper to do that, in some ways, but it’s the use of the media tool, not the tool itself, that's been bad. People really do want more; they just don't realize it yet.

Shiny, short bullet points are attractive, especially if they are wrapped in candy or sex. ;) Unless we are already interested, it’s hard to get past 30 seconds of attention.

Of course, the MSM has the money, one hurdle that could be hard to overcome, but technique development costs are reduced, since MSM set the form already. :)

Just open the box and see

Yep - the great majority of the electorate have

the attention span of gnats.

A number of short bullet points lasting no more than 30 seconds each is the order of the day to grab attention in the first place.

If you have several bullet points you have a better chance of getting them interested in at least one of them.

There is no shame in using msm techniques to try and sell our brand.
We are selling a brand. The Ron Paul message.
It might be more important than selling soap and a more complicated product, but persuading people to buy it in the first place is just the same.
We have to tell them directly and in simple short clear English, what's in it for them if they do.

The neocons sold their despicable brand using msm techniques.
"All muslims are out to kill us" " They hate us for our freedoms" "Iraq was involved in 9/11" etc. All total garbage of course. But it sold by using short phrases.

Once you have got some interest you can spend longer explaining things.

Getting them interested in the first place and past the msm brainwashing is the difficult bit.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Thats a bunch of

Thats a bunch of crap....Romney WAS centrist. No....Libertarian to Anarchist is the way I go....both of which are considered far right. A centrist message is too weak and will change NOTHING. Ron Paul was right....this is a morality crisis on a national scale, the only way to change this is one mind at a time.

We should make the Centrist ground the Bill of Rights

and a Jeffersonian foreign policy "goodwill and trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none".

After all, that was what this country was Founded upon.
What could be more Centrist than that? The Founding principles.

Jefferson & the Barbary Pirates should be used as an example of effective Foreign Policy.
If we have a problem we will discuss it, if you attack me - I will attack you back 10 X harder, but I will make that attack short, snappy and effective.
Like Jefferson did with the Barbary pirates.
He didn't invade the Barbary Coast or try and change their culture or nation build like Romney or Obama would do today.
He launched a Commando raid and wrecked Tunis.
He let them know it was in the Barbary Pirate's best interests to cut a deal and live in relative peace.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

See you in 10,000 years

That might give you enough time to persuade enough people to start to make a difference.

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."

Romney was NO centrist

He was a reckless spending, big government fascist in the Mussolini mould.

He was owned by the banks.

He would do whatever the neocons and the arms companies told him to do.
He was taking lessons in the wording of the neocon message from Dan Senor and Dov Zakheim.
He wanted increases in military spending.
He wanted some new toy boats.

He was ambivalent on his social views.
That's why he seems to keep changing his mind.

Romney's only interest is making money.
He would have done that on a grand scale if he had been elected President.
He would have awarded lots of juicy government contracts to companies owned by Bain Capital.
(He would have made Cheney & Halliburton look like rank amateurs.)

"In the end, more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When ... the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."